Design and In Silico Evaluation of an Exercise Decision Support System Using Digital Twin Models.

BACKGROUND: Managing glucose levels during exercise is challenging for individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) since multiple factors including activity type, duration, intensity and other factors must be considered. Current decision support tools lack personalized recommendations and fail to distinguish between aerobic and resistance exercise. We propose an exercise-aware decision support system (exDSS) that uses digital twins to deliver personalized recommendations to help people with T1D maintain safe glucose levels (70-180 mg/dL) and avoid low glucose (<70 mg/dL) during and after exercise. METHODS: We evaluated exDSS using various exercise and meal scenarios recorded from a large, free-living study of aerobic and resistance exercise. The model inputs were heart rate, insulin, and meal data. Glucose responses were simulated during and after 30-minute exercise sessions (676 aerobic, 631 resistance) from 247 participants. Glucose outcomes were compared when participants followed exDSS recommendations, clinical guidelines, or did not modify behavior (no intervention). RESULTS: exDSS significantly improved mean time in range for aerobic (80.2% to 92.3%, P < .0001) and resistance (72.3% to 87.3%, P < .0001) exercises compared with no intervention, and versus clinical guidelines (aerobic: 82.2%, P < .0001; resistance: 80.3%, P < .0001). exDSS reduced time spent in low glucose for both exercise types compared with no intervention (aerobic: 15.1% to 5.1%, P < .0001; resistance: 18.2% to 6.6%, P < .0001) and was comparable with following clinical guidelines (aerobic: 4.5%, resistance: 8.1%, P = N.S.). CONCLUSIONS: The exDSS tool significantly improved glucose outcomes during and after exercise versus following clinical guidelines and no intervention providing motivation for clinical evaluation of the exDSS system.

Assessment of a Decision Support System for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes on Multiple Daily Insulin Injections.

Introduction: DailyDose is a decision support system designed to provide real-time dosing advice and weekly insulin dose adjustments for adults living with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily insulin injections. Materials and Methods: Twenty-five adults were enrolled in this single-arm study. All participants used Dexcom G6 for continuous glucose monitoring, InPen for short-acting insulin doses, and Clipsulin to track long-acting insulin doses. Participants used DailyDose on an iPhone for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was % time in range (TIR) comparing the 2-week baseline to the final 2-week period of DailyDose use. Results: There were no significant differences between TIR or other glycemic metrics between the baseline period compared to final 2-week period of DailyDose use. TIR significantly improved by 6.3% when more than half of recommendations were accepted and followed compared with 50% or fewer recommendations (95% CI 2.5%-10.1%, P = 0.001). Conclusions: Use of DailyDose did not improve glycemic outcomes compared to the baseline period. In a post hoc analysis, accepting and following recommendations from DailyDose was associated with improved TIR. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT04428645.

Accuracy of the Dexcom G6 Glucose Sensor during Aerobic, Resistance, and Interval Exercise in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

The accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensors may be significantly impacted by exercise. We evaluated the impact of three different types of exercise on the accuracy of the Dexcom G6 sensor. Twenty-four adults with type 1 diabetes on multiple daily injections wore a G6 sensor. Participants were randomized to aerobic, resistance, or high intensity interval training (HIIT) exercise. Each participant completed two in-clinic 30-min exercise sessions. The sensors were applied on average 5.3 days prior to the in-clinic visits (range 0.6-9.9). Capillary blood glucose (CBG) measurements with a Contour Next meter were performed before and after exercise as well as every 10 min during exercise. No CGM calibrations were performed. The median absolute relative difference (MARD) and median relative difference (MRD) of the CGM as compared with the reference CBG did not differ significantly from the start of exercise to the end exercise across all exercise types (ranges for aerobic MARD: 8.9 to 13.9% and MRD: -6.4 to 0.5%, resistance MARD: 7.7 to 14.5% and MRD: -8.3 to -2.9%, HIIT MARD: 12.1 to 16.8% and MRD: -14.3 to -9.1%). The accuracy of the no-calibration Dexcom G6 CGM was not significantly impacted by aerobic, resistance, or HIIT exercise.

Adaptive Control of an Artificial Pancreas Using Model Identification, Adaptive Postprandial Insulin Delivery, and Heart Rate and Accelerometry as Control Inputs.

BACKGROUND: People with type 1 diabetes (T1D) have varying sensitivities to insulin and also varying responses to meals and exercise. We introduce a new adaptive run-to-run model predictive control (MPC) algorithm that can be used to help people with T1D better manage their glucose levels using an artificial pancreas (AP). The algorithm adapts to individuals' different insulin sensitivities, glycemic response to meals, and adjustment during exercise as a continuous input during free-living conditions. METHODS: A new insulin sensitivity adaptation (ISA) algorithm is presented that updates each patient's insulin sensitivity during nonmeal periods to reduce the error between the actual glucose levels and the process model. We further demonstrate how an adaptive learning postprandial hypoglycemia prevention algorithm (ALPHA) presented in the previous work can complement the ISA algorithm, and the algorithm can adapt in several days. We further show that if physical activity is incorporated as a continuous input (heart rate and accelerometry), performance is improved. The contribution of this work is the description of the ISA algorithm and the evaluation of how ISA, ALPHA, and incorporation of exercise metrics as a continuous input can impact glycemic control. RESULTS: Incorporating ALPHA, ISA, and physical activity into the MPC improved glycemic outcome measures. The adaptive learning postprandial hypoglycemia prevention algorithm combined with ISA significantly reduced time spent in hypoglycemia by 71.7% and the total number of rescue carbs by 67.8% to 0.37% events/day/patient. Insulin sensitivity adaptation significantly reduced model-actual mismatch by 12.2% compared to an AP without ISA. Incorporating physical activity as a continuous input modestly improved time in the range 70 to 180 mg/dL during high physical activity days from 84.4% to 84.9% and reduced the percentage time in hypoglycemia by 23.8% from 2.1% to 1.6%. CONCLUSION: Adapting postprandial insulin delivery, insulin sensitivity, and adapting to physical exercise in an MPC-based AP systems can improve glycemic outcomes.

Modeling Glucagon Action in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes.

The dual-hormone artificial pancreas is an emerging technology to treat type 1 diabetes (T1D). It consists of a glucose sensor, infusion pumps, and a dosing algorithm that directs hormonal delivery. Preclinical optimization of dosing algorithms using computer simulations has the potential to accelerate the pace of development for this technology. However, current simulation environments consider glucose regulation models that either do not include glucagon action submodels or include submodels that were proposed without comparison to other candidate models. We consider here nine candidate models of glucagon action featuring a number of possible characteristics: insulin-independent glucagon action, insulin/glucagon ratio effect on hepatic glucose production, insulin-dependent suppression of glucagon action, and the effect of rate of change of glucagon. To assess the models, we use measurements of plasma insulin, plasma glucagon, and endogenous glucose production collected from experiments involving eight subjects with T1D who receive four subcutaneous glucagon boluses. We estimate each model's parameters using a Bayesian approach, and the models are contrasted based on the deviance information criterion. The model achieving the best fit features insulin-dependent suppression of glucagon action and incorporates effects of both glucagon levels and its rate of change.

Comparative Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Study of Liquid Stable Glucagon Versus Lyophilized Glucagon in Type 1 Diabetes Subjects.

BACKGROUND: There is currently no stable liquid form of glucagon commercially available. The aim of this study is to assess the speed of absorption and onset of action of G-Pump™ glucagon at 3 doses as compared to GlucaGen®, all delivered subcutaneously via an OmniPod®. METHODS: Nineteen adult subjects with type 1 diabetes participated in this Phase 2, randomized, double-blind, cross-over, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study. Subjects were given 0.3, 1.2, and 2.0 µg/kg each of G-Pump glucagon and GlucaGen via an OmniPod. RESULTS: G-Pump glucagon effectively increased blood glucose levels in a dose-dependent fashion with a glucose Cmax of 183, 200, and 210 mg/dL at doses of 0.3, 1.2, and 2.0 µg/kg, respectively (P = ns vs GlucaGen). Mean increases in blood glucose from baseline were 29.2, 52.9, and 77.7 mg/dL for G-Pump doses of 0.3, 1.2, and 2.0 µg/kg, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between treatments in the glucose T50%-early or glucagon T50%-early with one exception. The glucagon T50%-early was greater following G-Pump treatment at the 2.0 µg/kg dose (13.9 ± 4.7 min) compared with GlucaGen treatment at the 2.0 µg/kg dose (11.0 ± 3.1 min, P = .018). There was more pain and erythema at the infusion site with G-Pump as compared to GlucaGen. No serious adverse events were reported, and no unexpected safety issues were observed. CONCLUSIONS: G-Pump glucagon is a novel, stable glucagon formulation with similar PK/PD properties as GlucaGen, but was associated with more pain and infusion site reactions as the dose increased, as compared to GlucaGen.