Modeling the Effect of Subcutaneous Lixisenatide on Glucoregulatory Endocrine Secretions and Gastric Emptying in Type 2 Diabetes to Simulate the Effect of iGlarLixi Administration Timing on Blood Sugar Profiles.

BACKGROUND: As type 2 diabetes (T2D) progresses, intensification to combination therapies, such as iGlarLixi (a fixed-ratio GLP-1 RA and basal insulin combination), may be required. Here a simulation study was used to assess the effect of iGlarLixi administration timing (am vs pm) on blood sugar profiles. METHODS: Models of lixisenatide were built with a selection procedure, optimizing measurement fits and model complexity, and were included in a pre-existing T2D simulation platform containing glargine models. With the resulting tool, a simulated trial was conducted with 100 in-silico participants with T2D. Individuals were given iGLarLixi either before breakfast or before an evening meal for 2 weeks and daily glycemic profiles were analyzed. In the model, breakfast was considered the largest meal of the day. RESULTS: A similar percentage of time within 24 hours was spent with blood sugar levels between 70 to 180 mg/dL when iGlarLixi was administered pre-breakfast or pre-evening meal (73% vs 71%, respectively). Overall percent of time with blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL within a 24-hour period was similar when iGlarLixi was administered pre-breakfast or pre-evening meal (26% vs 28%, respectively). Rates of hypoglycemia were low in both regimens, with a blood glucose concentration of below 70 mg/dL only observed for 1% of the 24-hour time period for either timing of administration. CONCLUSIONS: Good efficacy was observed when iGlarlixi was administered pre-breakfast; however, administration of iGlarlixi pre-evening meal was also deemed to be effective, even though in the model the size of the evening meal was smaller than that of the breakfast.

The Differential and Combined Action of Insulin Glargine and Lixisenatide on the Fasting and Postprandial Components of Glucose Control.

BACKGROUND: iGlarLixi is an injectable combination of long acting insulin glargine (iGlar) and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist lixisenatide in a fixed ratio, which was proven safe and effective for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Lixisenatide and iGlar act differently on fasting and postprandial plasma glucose (fasting plasma glucose [FPG] and postprandial glucose [PPG]). Here, we deconstruct quantitatively their respective FPG and PPG effects. METHOD: This post hoc study analyzes data from the Lixilan-O trial, where 1170 subjects with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to 30 weeks of once daily injections of lixisenatide, iGlar, and iGlarLixi (1:2:2). The FPG and PPG components of glucose control were assessed in terms of mean glucose (fasting mean plasma glucose [FMPG] and prandial mean plasma glucose [PMPG], respectively). The MPGP was computed across all meals as a delta between post- and premeal glucose; glucose variability was measured by the high blood glucose index (HBGI) (fasting HBGI and prandial HBGI [PHBGI], respectively), and glycemic exposure measured by area under the curve (AUC) computed overall. All metrics were derived from seven-point self-monitoring glucose profiles. RESULTS: Insulin glargine lowered significantly FMPG by 15.3 mg/dL (P < .01) without any significant change in PMPG. Lixisenatide, when added to iGlar, reduced PMPG by 9.7 mg/dL (P < .01), AUC by 96.3 mg∙h/dL (P < .01), and PHBGI by 2.4 (P < .01), primarily due to attenuation of PPG and without significant change in mean FPG. CONCLUSION: Insulin glargine and lixisenatide act selectively on FPG and PPG. Their combination iGlarLixi offers more effective glucose control than its components due to the cumulative effect on FPG and PPG, which is evidenced by reduced average glycemia, glycemic exposure, and glucose variability.

Automated Adaptation of Insulin Treatment in Type 1 Diabetes.

Individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) need life-long insulin therapy to compensate for the lack of endogenous insulin due to the autoimmune damage to pancreatic beta-cells. Treatment is based on basal and bolus insulin, to cover fasting and postprandial periods, respectively, according to three insulin dosing parameters: basal rate (BR), carbohydrate-to-insulin ratio (CR), and correction factor (CF). Suboptimal BR, CR, and CF profiles leading to incorrect insulin dosing may be the cause of undesired glycemic events, which carry dangerous short-term and long-term effects. Therefore, correct tuning of these parameters is of the utmost importance. In this work, we propose a new algorithm to optimize insulin dosing parameters in individuals with T1D who use a continuous glucose monitor and an insulin pump. The algorithm was tested using the University of Virginia/Padova T1D Simulator and led to an improvement in the quality of glycemic control. Future efforts will be devoted to test the algorithm in human clinical trials.

Replay Simulations with Personalized Metabolic Model for Treatment Design and Evaluation in Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The capacity to replay data collected in real life by people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) would lead to individualized (vs population) assessment of treatment strategies to control blood glucose and possibly true personalization. Patek et al introduced such a technique, relying on regularized deconvolution of a population glucose homeostasis model to estimate a residual additive signal and reproduce the experimental data; therefore, allowing the subject-specific replay of what-if scenarios by altering the model inputs (eg, insulin). This early method was shown to have a limited domain of validity. We propose and test in silico a similar approach and extend the method applicability. METHODS: A subject-specific model personalization of insulin sensitivity and meal-absorption parameters is performed. The University of Virginia (UVa)/Padova T1DM simulator is used to generate experimental scenarios and test the ability of the methodology to accurately reproduce changes in glucose concentration to alteration in meal and insulin inputs. Method performance is assessed by comparing true (UVa/Padova simulator) and replayed glucose traces, using the mean absolute relative difference (MARD) and the Clarke error grid analysis (CEGA). RESULTS: Model personalization led to a 9.08 and 6.07 decrease in MARD over a prior published method of replaying altered insulin scenarios for basal and bolus changes, respectively. Replay simulations achieved high accuracy, with MARD <10% and more than 95% of readings falling in the CEGA A-B zones for a wide range of interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In silico studies demonstrate that the proposed method for replay simulation is numerically and clinically valid over broad changes in scenario inputs, indicating possible use in treatment optimization.

Artificial intelligence and diabetes technology: A review.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is widely discussed in the popular literature and is portrayed as impacting many aspects of human life, both in and out of the workplace. The potential for revolutionizing healthcare is significant because of the availability of increasingly powerful computational platforms and methods, along with increasingly informative sources of patient data, both in and out of clinical settings. This review aims to provide a realistic assessment of the potential for AI in understanding and managing diabetes, accounting for the state of the art in the methodology and medical devices that collect data, process data, and act accordingly. Acknowledging that many conflicting definitions of AI have been put forth, this article attempts to characterize the main elements of the field as they relate to diabetes, identifying the main perspectives and methods that can (i) affect basic understanding of the disease, (ii) affect understanding of risk factors (genetic, clinical, and behavioral) of diabetes development, (iii) improve diagnosis, (iv) improve understanding of the arc of disease (progression and personal/societal impact), and finally (v) improve treatment.

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.