The significant and growing global prevalence of diabetes continues to challenge people with diabetes (PwD), healthcare providers, and payers. While maintaining near-normal glucose levels has been shown to prevent or delay the progression of the long-term complications of diabetes, a significant proportion of PwD are not attaining their glycemic goals. During the past 6 years, we have seen tremendous advances in automated insulin delivery (AID) technologies. Numerous randomized controlled trials and real-world studies have shown that the use of AID systems is safe and effective in helping PwD achieve their long-term glycemic goals while reducing hypoglycemia risk. Thus, AID systems have recently become an integral part of diabetes management. However, recommendations for using AID systems in clinical settings have been lacking. Such guided recommendations are critical for AID success and acceptance. All clinicians working with PwD need to become familiar with the available systems in order to eliminate disparities in diabetes quality of care. This report provides much-needed guidance for clinicians who are interested in utilizing AIDs and presents a comprehensive listing of the evidence payers should consider when determining eligibility criteria for AID insurance coverage.

Background: A composite metric for the quality of glycemia from continuous glucose monitor (CGM) tracings could be useful for assisting with basic clinical interpretation of CGM data. Methods: We assembled a data set of 14-day CGM tracings from 225 insulin-treated adults with diabetes. Using a balanced incomplete block design, 330 clinicians who were highly experienced with CGM analysis and interpretation ranked the CGM tracings from best to worst quality of glycemia. We used principal component analysis and multiple regressions to develop a model to predict the clinician ranking based on seven standard metrics in an Ambulatory Glucose Profile: very low–glucose and low-glucose hypoglycemia; very high–glucose and high-glucose hyperglycemia; time in range; mean glucose; and coefficient of variation. Results: The analysis showed that clinician rankings depend on two components, one related to hypoglycemia that gives more weight to very low-glucose than to low-glucose and the other related to hyperglycemia that likewise gives greater weight to very high-glucose than to high-glucose. These two components should be calculated and displayed separately, but they can also be combined into a single Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) that corresponds closely to the clinician rankings of the overall quality of glycemia (r = 0.95). The GRI can be displayed graphically on a GRI Grid with the hypoglycemia component on the horizontal axis and the hyperglycemia component on the vertical axis. Diagonal lines divide the graph into five zones (quintiles) corresponding to the best (0th to 20th percentile) to worst (81st to 100th percentile) overall quality of glycemia. The GRI Grid enables users to track sequential changes within an individual over time and compare groups of individuals. Conclusion: The GRI is a single-number summary of the quality of glycemia. Its hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia components provide actionable scores and a graphical display (the GRI Grid) that can be used by clinicians and researchers to determine the glycemic effects of prescribed and investigational treatments.

OBJECTIVE: To minimize hypoglycemia in subjects with type 1 diabetes by automated glucagon delivery in a closed-loop insulin delivery system. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Adult subjects with type 1 diabetes underwent one closed-loop study with insulin plus placebo and one study with insulin plus glucagon, given at times of impending hypoglycemia. Seven subjects received glucagon using high-gain parameters, and six subjects received glucagon in a more prolonged manner using low-gain parameters. Blood glucose levels were measured every 10 min and insulin and glucagon infusions were adjusted every 5 min. All subjects received a portion of their usual premeal insulin after meal announcement. RESULTS: Automated glucagon plus insulin delivery, compared with placebo plus insulin, significantly reduced time spent in the hypoglycemic range (15 ± 6 vs. 40 ± 10 min/day, P = 0.04). Compared with placebo, high-gain glucagon delivery reduced the frequency of hypoglycemic events (1.0 ± 0.6 vs. 2.1 ± 0.6 events/day, P = 0.01) and the need for carbohydrate treatment (1.4 ± 0.8 vs. 4.0 ± 1.4 treatments/day, P = 0.01). Glucagon given with low-gain parameters did not significantly reduce hypoglycemic event frequency (P = NS) but did reduce frequency of carbohydrate treatment (P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: During closed-loop treatment in subjects with type 1 diabetes, high-gain pulses of glucagon decreased the frequency of hypoglycemia. Larger and longer-term studies will be required to assess the effect of ongoing glucagon treatment on overall glycemic control.

Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet #Preprint #PeerReviewMe: Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint. Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn. Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period. Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author). 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 two 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 2TM, Garmin vívosmart® HR+) during dynamic activities. Over a two-day period, 20 healthy adults (age: 27.5 ± 6.0 yrs; BMI: 22.5 ± 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 a 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% ± 16.7 while Fitbit estimated HR with a %RE of -4.7% ± 19.6 across all activities. The highest error was observed during high intensity intervals on bike (Fitbit: -11.4% ± 35.7; Garmin: -14.3% ± 20.5) and lowest error during high intensity intervals on treadmill (Fitbit: -1.7% ± 11.5; Garmin: -0.5% ± 9.4). Fitbit and Garmin EE estimates differed significantly with Garmin having less negative bias (Fitbit: -19.3% ± 29.9, Garmin: -1.6% ± 30.6, P<.001) across all activities, with both correlating poorly with indirect calorimetry measures. Conclusions: Two common wrist-worn devices 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.

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.

Objective: Artificial intelligence and machine learning are transforming many fields including medicine. In diabetes, robust biosensing technologies and automated insulin delivery therapies have created a substantial opportunity to improve health. While the number of manuscripts addressing the topic of applying machine learning to diabetes has grown in recent years, there has been a lack of consistency in the methods, metrics, and data used to train and evaluate these algorithms. This manuscript provides consensus guidelines for machine learning practitioners in the field of diabetes, including best practice recommended approaches and warnings about pitfalls to avoid. Methods: Algorithmic approaches are reviewed and benefits of different algorithms are discussed including importance of clinical accuracy, explainability, interpretability, and personalization. We review the most common features used in machine learning applications in diabetes glucose control and provide an open-source library of functions for calculating features, as well as a framework for specifying data sets using data sheets. A review of current data sets available for training algorithms is provided as well as an online repository of data sources. Significance: These consensus guidelines are designed to improve performance and translatability of new machine learning algorithms developed in the field of diabetes for engineers and data scientists.