Recent Advances in Portable Biosensors for Biomarker Detection in Body Fluids.

A recent development in portable biosensors allows rapid, accurate, and on-site detection of biomarkers, which helps to prevent disease spread by the control of sources. Less invasive sample collection is necessary to use portable biosensors in remote environments for accurate on-site diagnostics and testing. For non- or minimally invasive sampling, easily accessible body fluids, such as saliva, sweat, blood, or urine, have been utilized. It is also imperative to find accurate biomarkers to provide better clinical intervention and treatment at the onset of disease. At the same time, these reliable biomarkers can be utilized to monitor the progress of the disease. In this review, we summarize the most recent development of portable biosensors to detect various biomarkers accurately. In addition, we discuss ongoing issues and limitations of the existing systems and methods. Lastly, we present the key requirements of portable biosensors and discuss ideas for functional enhancements.

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% VO2max) 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.

Patient Input for Design of a Decision Support Smartphone Application for Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Decision support smartphone applications integrated with continuous glucose monitors may improve glycemic control in type 1 diabetes (T1D). We conducted a survey to understand trends and needs of potential users to inform the design of decision support technology. METHODS: A 70-question survey was distributed October 2017 through May 2018 to adults aged 18-80 with T1D from a specialty clinic and T1D Exchange online health community (myglu.org). The survey responses were used to evaluate potential features of a diabetes decision support tool by Likert scale and open responses. RESULTS: There were 1542 responses (mean age 46.1 years [SD 15.2], mean duration of diabetes 26.5 years [SD 15.8]). The majority (84.2%) have never used an app to manage diabetes; however, a large majority (77.8%) expressed interest in using a decision support app. The ability to predict and avoid hypoglycemia was the most important feature identified by a majority of the respondents, with 91% of respondents indicating the highest level of interest in these features. The task that respondents find most difficult was management of glucose during exercise (only 47% of participants were confident in glucose management during exercise). The respondents also highly desired features that help manage glucose during exercise (85% of respondents were interested). The responses identified integration and interoperability with peripheral devices/apps and customization of alerts as important. Responses from participants were generally consistent across stratified categories. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide valuable insight into patient needs in decision support applications for management of T1D.

Accuracy of Wrist-Worn Activity Monitors During Common Daily Physical Activities and Types of Structured Exercise: Evaluation Study.

BACKGROUND: Wrist-worn activity monitors are often used to monitor heart rate (HR) and energy expenditure (EE) in a variety of settings including more recently in medical applications. The use of real-time physiological signals to inform medical systems including drug delivery systems and decision support systems will depend on the accuracy of the signals being measured, including accuracy of HR and EE. Prior studies assessed accuracy of wearables only during steady-state aerobic exercise. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to validate the accuracy of both HR and EE for 2 common wrist-worn devices during a variety of dynamic activities that represent various physical activities associated with daily living including structured exercise. METHODS: We assessed the accuracy of both HR and EE for two common wrist-worn devices (Fitbit Charge 2 and Garmin vívosmart HR+) during dynamic activities. Over a 2-day period, 20 healthy adults (age: mean 27.5 [SD 6.0] years; body mass index: mean 22.5 [SD 2.3] kg/m2; 11 females) performed a maximal oxygen uptake test, free-weight resistance circuit, interval training session, and activities of daily living. Validity was assessed using an HR chest strap (Polar) and portable indirect calorimetry (Cosmed). Accuracy of the commercial wearables versus research-grade standards was determined using Bland-Altman analysis, correlational analysis, and error bias. RESULTS: Fitbit and Garmin were reasonably accurate at measuring HR but with an overall negative bias. There was more error observed during high-intensity activities when there was a lack of repetitive wrist motion and when the exercise mode indicator was not used. The Garmin estimated HR with a mean relative error (RE, %) of -3.3% (SD 16.7), whereas Fitbit estimated HR with an RE of -4.7% (SD 19.6) across all activities. The highest error was observed during high-intensity intervals on bike (Fitbit: -11.4% [SD 35.7]; Garmin: -14.3% [SD 20.5]) and lowest error during high-intensity intervals on treadmill (Fitbit: -1.7% [SD 11.5]; Garmin: -0.5% [SD 9.4]). Fitbit and Garmin EE estimates differed significantly, with Garmin having less negative bias (Fitbit: -19.3% [SD 28.9], Garmin: -1.6% [SD 30.6], P<.001) across all activities, and with both correlating poorly with indirect calorimetry measures. CONCLUSIONS: Two common wrist-worn devices (Fitbit Charge 2 and Garmin vívosmart HR+) show good HR accuracy, with a small negative bias, and reasonable EE estimates during low to moderate-intensity exercise and during a variety of common daily activities and exercise. Accuracy was compromised markedly when the activity indicator was not used on the watch or when activities involving less wrist motion such as cycle ergometry were done.

Randomized Outpatient Trial of Single- and Dual-Hormone Closed-Loop Systems That Adapt to Exercise Using Wearable Sensors.

OBJECTIVE: Automated insulin delivery is the new standard for type 1 diabetes, but exercise-related hypoglycemia remains a challenge. Our aim was to determine whether a dual-hormone closed-loop system using wearable sensors to detect exercise and adjust dosing to reduce exercise-related hypoglycemia would outperform other forms of closed-loop and open-loop therapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants underwent four arms in randomized order: dual-hormone, single-hormone, predictive low glucose suspend, and continuation of current care over 4 outpatient days. Each arm included three moderate-intensity aerobic exercise sessions. The two primary outcomes were percentage of time in hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) and in a target range (70-180 mg/dL) assessed across the entire study and from the start of the in-clinic exercise until the next meal. RESULTS: The analysis included 20 adults with type 1 diabetes who completed all arms. The mean time (SD) in hypoglycemia was the lowest with dual-hormone during the exercise period: 3.4% (4.5) vs. 8.3% (12.6) single-hormone (P = 0.009) vs. 7.6% (8.0) predictive low glucose suspend (P < 0.001) vs. 4.3% (6.8) current care where pre-exercise insulin adjustments were allowed (P = 0.49). Time in hypoglycemia was also the lowest with dual-hormone during the entire 4-day study: 1.3% (1.0) vs. 2.8% (1.7) single-hormone (P < 0.001) vs. 2.0% (1.5) predictive low glucose suspend (P = 0.04) vs. 3.1% (3.2) current care (P = 0.007). Time in range during the entire study was the highest with single-hormone: 74.3% (8.0) vs. 72.0% (10.8) dual-hormone (P = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of glucagon delivery to a closed-loop system with automated exercise detection reduces hypoglycemia in physically active adults with type 1 diabetes.