Randomized trial of a dual-hormone artificial pancreas with dosing adjustment during exercise compared with no adjustment and sensor-augmented pump therapy.

AIMS: To test whether adjusting insulin and glucagon in response to exercise within a dual-hormone artificial pancreas (AP) reduces exercise-related hypoglycaemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In random order, 21 adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) underwent three 22-hour experimental sessions: AP with exercise dosing adjustment (APX); AP with no exercise dosing adjustment (APN); and sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy. After an overnight stay and 2 hours after breakfast, participants exercised for 45 minutes at 60% of their maximum heart rate, with no snack given before exercise. During APX, insulin was decreased and glucagon was increased at exercise onset, while during SAP therapy, subjects could adjust dosing before exercise. The two primary outcomes were percentage of time spent in hypoglycaemia (<3.9 mmol/L) and percentage of time spent in euglycaemia (3.9-10 mmol/L) from the start of exercise to the end of the study. RESULTS: The mean (95% confidence interval) times spent in hypoglycaemia (<3.9 mmol/L) after the start of exercise were 0.3% (-0.1, 0.7) for APX, 3.1% (0.8, 5.3) for APN, and 0.8% (0.1, 1.4) for SAP therapy. There was an absolute difference of 2.8% less time spent in hypoglycaemia for APX versus APN (p = .001) and 0.5% less time spent in hypoglycaemia for APX versus SAP therapy (p = .16). Mean time spent in euglycaemia was similar across the different sessions. CONCLUSIONS: Adjusting insulin and glucagon delivery at exercise onset within a dual-hormone AP significantly reduces hypoglycaemia compared with no adjustment and performs similarly to SAP therapy when insulin is adjusted before exercise.

Factors affecting the success of glucagon delivered during an automated closed-loop system in type 1 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: In bi-hormonal closed-loop systems for treatment of diabetes, glucagon sometimes fails to prevent hypoglycemia. We evaluated glucagon responses during several closed-loop studies to determine factors, such as gain factors, responsible for glucagon success and failure. METHODS: We extracted data from four closed-loop studies, examining blood glucose excursions over the 50min after each glucagon dose and defining hypoglycemic failure as glucose values<60 mg/dl. Secondly, we evaluated hyperglycemic excursions within the same period, where glucose was>180 mg/dl. We evaluated several factors for association with rates of hypoglycemic failure or hyperglycemic excursion. These factors included age, weight, HbA1c, duration of diabetes, gender, automation of glucagon delivery, glucagon dose, proportional and derivative errors (PE and DE), insulin on board (IOB), night vs. day delivery, and point sensor accuracy. RESULTS: We analyzed a total of 251 glucagon deliveries during 59 closed-loop experiments performed on 48 subjects. Glucagon successfully maintained glucose within target (60-180 mg/dl) in 195 (78%) of instances with 40 (16%) hypoglycemic failures and 16 (6%) hyperglycemic excursions. A multivariate logistic regression model identified PE (p<0.001), DE (p<0.001), and IOB (p<0.001) as significant determinants of success in terms of avoiding hypoglycemia. Using a model of glucagon absorption and action, simulations suggested that the success rate for glucagon would be improved by giving an additional 0.8µg/kg. CONCLUSION: We conclude that glucagon fails to prevent hypoglycemia when it is given at a low glucose threshold and when glucose is falling steeply. We also confirm that high IOB significantly increases the risk for glucagon failures. Tuning of glucagon subsystem parameters may help reduce this risk.