Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: Assess the safety and efficacy of automated insulin delivery (AID) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) at high risk for hypoglycemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants were 72 adults with T1D who used an insulin pump with Clarke Hypoglycemia Perception Awareness scale score >3 and/or had severe hypoglycemia during the previous 6 months confirmed by time below range (TBR; defined as sensor glucose [SG] reading <70 mg/dL) of at least 5% during 2 weeks of blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Parallel-arm, randomized trial (2:1) of AID (Tandem t:slim ×2 with Control-IQ technology) versus CGM and pump therapy for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was TBR change from baseline. Secondary outcomes included time in target range (TIR; 70–180 mg/dL), time above range (TAR), mean SG reading, and time with glucose level <54 mg/dL. An optional 12-week extension with AID was offered to all participants. RESULTS: Compared with the sensor and pump (S&P), AID resulted in significant reduction of TBR by −3.7% (95% CI −4.8, −2.6), P < 0.001; an 8.6% increase in TIR (95% CI 5.2, 12.1), P < 0.001; and a −5.3% decrease in TAR (95% CI −87.7, −1.8), P = 0.004. Mean SG reading remained similar in the AID and S&P groups. During the 12-week extension, the effects of AID were sustained in the AID group and reproduced in the S&P group. Two severe hypoglycemic episodes occurred using AID. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with T1D at high risk for hypoglycemia, AID reduced the risk for hypoglycemia more than twofold, as quantified by TBR, while improving TIR and reducing hyperglycemia. Hence, AID is strongly recommended for this specific population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To document glycemic and user-initiated bolus changes following transition from predictive low glucose suspend (PLGS) system to automated insulin delivery (AID) system during real-life use.Research Design and Methods: We conducted analysis of 2,329,166 days (6,381 patient-years) of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and insulin therapy data for 19,354 individuals with type 1 Diabetes, during 1-month PLGS use (Basal-IQ technology) followed by 3-month AID use (Control-IQ technology). Baseline characteristics are as follows: 55.4% female, age (median/quartiles/range) 39/19-58/1-92 years, mean ± SD glucose management indicator (GMI) 7.5 ± 0.8. Primary outcome was time in target range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL). Secondary outcomes included CGM-based glycemic control metrics and frequency of user-initiated boluses.Results: Compared with PLGS, AID increased TIR on average from 58.4 to 70.5%. GMI and percent time above and below target range improved as well: from 7.5 to 7.1, 39.9 to 28.1%, and 1.66 to 1.46%, respectively; all P values <0.0001. Stratification of outcomes by age and baseline GMI revealed clinically significant differences. Glycemic improvements were most pronounced in those <18 years old (TIR improvement 14.0 percentage points) and those with baseline GMI >8.0 (TIR improvement 13.2 percentage points). User-initiated correction boluses decreased from 2.7 to 1.8 per day, while user-initiated meal boluses remained stable at 3.6 to 3.8 per day.Conclusions: Observed in real life of >19,000 individuals with type 1 diabetes, transitions from PLGS to AID resulted in improvement of all glycemic parameters, equivalent to improvements observed in randomized clinical trials, and reduced user-initiated boluses. However, glycemic and behavioral changes with AID use may differ greatly across different demographic and clinical groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the World Health Organization, about 422 million people worldwide have type 1 or type 2 diabetes (T1D, T2D), with the latter accounting for 90–95% of cases. Safe and effective treatment of patients with diabetes requires accurate and frequent monitoring of their blood sugar levels. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is a monitoring technology developed to address this need, and its use among U.S. T1D patients has increased from 6% in 2011 to 38% in 2018 and continues to increase worldwide in both T1D and T2D. This paper presents a data-driven approach to determine $\Omega$ , a finite set of representative daily profiles (motifs) such that almost any daily CGM profile generated by a patient can be matched to one of the motifs in $\Omega$. The training data set (9741 profiles) was used to identify 8 candidate sets of motifs, while the validation data set (14 175 profiles) was used to select the final set $\Omega$. The robustness of $\Omega$ was established by using it to successfully classify (match against a representative daily profile in $\Omega$) 99.0% of 42 595 daily CGM profiles in the testing data set. All data sets contained daily CGM profiles from six studies involving T1D and T2D patients using a variety of treatment modes, including daily insulin injections, insulin pumps, or artificial pancreas (AP). The classified profiles can be used in predictive modeling, decision support, and automated control systems (e.g., AP). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increasing prevalence of diabetes, combined with a growing global shortage of health care professionals (HCP), necessitates the need to develop new approaches to diabetes care delivery to expand access to care, lessen the burden on people with diabetes, improve efficiencies, and reduce the unsustainable financial liability on health systems and payers. Use of digital diabetes technologies and telehealth protocols within a digital/virtual diabetes clinic has the potential to address these challenges. However, several issues must be resolved to move forward. In February 2020, organizers of the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes Annual Conference convened an international panel of HCP, researchers, patient advocates, and industry representatives to review the status of digital diabetes technologies, characterize deficits in current technologies, and identify issues for consideration. Since that meeting, the importance of using telehealth and digital diabetes technologies has been demonstrated amid the global coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. This article summarizes the panel's discussion of the opportunities, obstacles, and requisites for advancing the use of these technologies as a standard of care for the management of diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

All individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and many of those who have type 2 diabetes (T2D) rely on exogenous insulin injections to maintain their blood glucose levels within a target range, typically of 70-180 mg/dL. THE CLINICAL OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM OF DIABETES Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is an autoimmune condition resulting in near-absolute insulin deficiency and a lifelong need for insulin replacement.[1] Type 2 diabetes (T2D) results from increased insulin resistance accompanied by insufficient -cell response. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016; 10: 1169 - 73. 7 The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2007; 1: 164 - 70. 46 The Diabetes Research in Children Network (DirecNet) Study Group. [Extracted from the article]

Introduction: We examined differences in hypoglycaemia risk between insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) using the low blood glucose index (LBGI). Methods: Daily profiles of self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG) from the EDITION 2, EDITION 3 and SENIOR treat-to-target trials of Gla-300 versus Gla-100 were used to compute the LBGI, which is an established metric of hypoglycaemia risk. The analysis also examined documented (blood glucose readings < 3.0 mmol/L [54 mg/dL]) symptomatic hypoglycaemia (DSH). Results: Overall LBGI in EDITION 2 and SENIOR and night-time LBGI in all three trials were significantly (p < 0.05) lower with Gla-300 versus Gla-100. The largest differences between Gla-300 and Gla-100 were observed during the night. In all three trials, individual LBGI results correlated with the observed number of DSH episodes per participant (EDITION 2 [r = 0.35, p < 0.001]; EDITION 3 [r = 0.26, p < 0.001]; SENIOR [r = 0.30, p < 0.001]). Participants at moderate risk of experiencing hypoglycaemia (defined as LBGI > 1.1) reported 4- to 8-fold more frequent DSH events than those at minimal risk (LBGI ≤ 1.1) (p ≤ 0.009). Conclusions: The LBGI identified individuals with T2DM at risk for hypoglycaemia using SMPG data and correlated with the number of DSH events. Using the LBGI metric, a lower risk of hypoglycaemia with Gla-300 than Gla-100 was observed in all three trials. The finding that differences in LBGI are greater at night is consistent with previously published differences in the pharmacokinetic profiles of Gla-300 and Gla-100, which provides the physiological foundation for the presented results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Assess the efficacy of inControl AP, a mobile closed-loop control (CLC) system.Research Design and Methods: This protocol, NCT02985866, is a 3-month parallel-group, multicenter, randomized unblinded trial designed to compare mobile CLC with sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy. Eligibility criteria were type 1 diabetes for at least 1 year, use of insulin pumps for at least 6 months, age ≥14 years, and baseline HbA1c <10.5% (91 mmol/mol). The study was designed to assess two coprimary outcomes: superiority of CLC over SAP in continuous glucose monitor (CGM)-measured time below 3.9 mmol/L and noninferiority in CGM-measured time above 10 mmol/L.Results: Between November 2017 and May 2018, 127 participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to CLC (n = 65) versus SAP (n = 62); 125 participants completed the study. CGM time below 3.9 mmol/L was 5.0% at baseline and 2.4% during follow-up in the CLC group vs. 4.7% and 4.0%, respectively, in the SAP group (mean difference -1.7% [95% CI -2.4, -1.0]; P < 0.0001 for superiority). CGM time above 10 mmol/L was 40% at baseline and 34% during follow-up in the CLC group vs. 43% and 39%, respectively, in the SAP group (mean difference -3.0% [95% CI -6.1, 0.1]; P < 0.0001 for noninferiority). One severe hypoglycemic event occurred in the CLC group, which was unrelated to the study device.Conclusions: In meeting its coprimary end points, superiority of CLC over SAP in CGM-measured time below 3.9 mmol/L and noninferiority in CGM-measured time above 10 mmol/L, the study has demonstrated that mobile CLC is feasible and could offer certain usability advantages over embedded systems, provided the connectivity between system components is stable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Artificial pancreas (AP) systems have been shown to improve glycemic control throughout the day and night in adults, adolescents, and children. However, AP testing remains limited during intense and prolonged exercise in adolescents and children. We present the performance of the Tandem Control‐IQ AP system in adolescents and children during a winter ski camp study, where high altitude, low temperature, prolonged intense activity, and stress challenged glycemic control. Methods: In a randomized controlled trial, 24 adolescents (ages 13‐18 years) and 24 school‐aged children (6‐12 years) with Type 1 diabetes (T1D) participated in a 48 hours ski camp (∼5 hours skiing/day) at three sites: Wintergreen, VA; Kirkwood, and Breckenridge, CO. Study participants were randomized 1:1 at each site. The control group used remote monitored sensor‐augmented pump (RM‐SAP), and the experimental group used the t: slim X2 with Control‐IQ Technology AP system. All subjects were remotely monitored 24 hours per day by study staff. Results: The Control‐IQ system improved percent time within range (70‐180 mg/dL) over the entire camp duration: 66.4 ± 16.4 vs 53.9 ± 24.8%; P = .01 in both children and adolescents. The AP system was associated with a significantly lower average glucose based on continuous glucose monitor data: 161 ± 29.9 vs 176.8 ± 36.5 mg/dL; P = .023. There were no differences between groups for hypoglycemia exposure or carbohydrate interventions. There were no adverse events. Conclusions: The use of the Control‐IQ AP improved glycemic control and safely reduced exposure to hyperglycemia relative to RM‐SAP in pediatric patients with T1D during prolonged intensive winter sport activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Maintaining optimal glycaemic control reduces the risk of micro‐ and macrovascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes. Typically, glycaemic control is based on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) as a measure of mean glucose concentration; however, this marker does not accurately reflect glycaemic variability (GV), which is characterized by the amplitude, frequency and duration of hypo‐ and hyperglycaemic fluctuations. In the present study, we analysed data from the LixiLan‐O trial, which compared iGlarLixi, a titratable fixed‐ratio combination of the glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonist lixisenatide (Lixi) and long‐acting basal insulin glargine 100 units/mL (iGlar), with its individual components, and the LixiLan‐L trial, which compared iGlarLixi with iGlar. The GV features that were measured were mean and SD of self‐measured plasma glucose (SMPG), high blood glucose index (HBGI) and low blood glucose index, area under the SMPG curve for each patient (AUCn), mean absolute glucose (MAG) and mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions (MAGE). By week 30, iGlarLixi improved all GV markers from baseline, with no increased hypoglycaemia risk. Significant improvements were observed in SMPG, SD of SMPG, HBGI, AUCn, MAG and MAGE compared with iGlar, and in SMPG, HBGI and AUCn, compared with Lixi. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Cleared blood glucose monitors (BGMs) for personal use may not always deliver levels of accuracy currently specified by international and U.S. regulatory bodies. This study's objective was to assess the accuracy of 18 such systems cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration representing approximately 90% of commercially available systems used from 2013 to 2015.Research Design and Methods: A total of 1,035 subjects were recruited to have a capillary blood glucose (BG) level measured on six different systems and a reference capillary sample prepared for plasma testing at a reference laboratory. Products were obtained from consumer outlets and tested in three triple-blinded studies. Each of the three participating clinical sites tested a different set of six systems for each of the three studies in a round-robin. In each study, on average, a BGM was tested on 115 subjects. A compliant BG result was defined as within 15% of a reference plasma value (for BG ≥100 mg/dL [5.55 mmol/L]) or within 15 mg/dL (0.83 mmol/L) (for BG <100 mg/dL [5.55 mmol/L]). The proportion of compliant readings in each study was compared against a predetermined accuracy standard similar to, but more lenient than, current regulatory standards. Other metrics of accuracy included the overall compliance proportion; the proportion of extreme outlier readings differing from the reference value by >20%; modified Bland-Altman analysis including average bias, coefficient of variation, and 95% limits of agreement; and proportion of readings with no clinical risk as determined by the Surveillance Error Grid.Results: The different accuracy metrics produced almost identical BGM rankings. Six of the 18 systems met the predetermined accuracy standard in all three studies, 5 systems met it in two studies, and 3 met it in one study. Four BGMs did not meet the accuracy standard in any of the three studies.Conclusions: Cleared BGMs do not always meet the level of analytical accuracy currently required for regulatory clearance. This information could assist patients, professionals, and payers in choosing products and regulators in evaluating postclearance performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Intense exercise is a major challenge to the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D). Closed-loop control (CLC) systems (artificial pancreas) improve glycemic control during limited intensity and short duration of physical activity (PA). However, CLC has not been tested during extended vigorous outdoor exercise common among adolescents.Research Design and Methods: Skiing presents unique metabolic challenges: intense prolonged PA, cold, altitude, and stress/fear/excitement. In a randomized controlled trial, 32 adolescents with T1D (ages 10-16 years) participated in a 5-day ski camp (∼5 h skiing/day) at two sites: Wintergreen, VA, and Breckenridge, CO. Participants were randomized to the University of Virginia CLC system or remotely monitored sensor-augmented pump (RM-SAP). The CLC and RM-SAP groups were coarsely paired by age and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). All subjects were remotely monitored 24 h per day by the study physicians and clinical team.Results: Compared with physician-monitored open loop, percent time in range (70-180 mg/dL) improved using CLC: 71.3 vs. 64.7% (+6.6% [95% CI 1-12]; P = 0.005), with maximum effect late at night. Hypoglycemia exposure and carbohydrate treatments were improved overall (P = 0.001 and P = 0.007) and during the daytime with strong ski level effects (P = 0.0001 and P = 0.006); ski/snowboard proficiency was balanced between groups but with a very strong site effect: naive in Virginia and experienced in Colorado. There was no adverse event associated with CLC; the participants' feedback was overwhelmingly positive.Conclusions: CLC in adolescents with T1D improved glycemic control and reduced exposure to hypoglycemia during prolonged intensive winter sport activities, despite the added challenges of cold and altitude. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To evaluate the safety and performance of using a heart rate ( HR) monitor to inform an artificial pancreas ( AP) system during exercise among adolescents with type 1 diabetes ( T1D). Materials and Methods In a randomized, cross-over trial, adolescents with T1D age 13 - 18 years were enrolled to receive on separate days either the unmodified UVa AP ( stdAP) or an AP system connected to a portable HR monitor ( AP-HR) that triggered an exercise algorithm for blood glucose ( BG) control. During admissions participants underwent a structured exercise regimen. Hypoglycemic events and CGM tracings were compared between the two admissions, during exercise and for the full 24-hour period. Results Eighteen participants completed the trial. While number of hypoglycemic events during exercise and rest was not different between visits (0.39 AP-HR vs 0.50 stdAP), time below 70 mg dL−1 was lower on AP-HR compared to stdAP, 0.5±2.1% vs 7.4±12.5% ( P = 0.028). Time with BG within 70-180 mg dL−1 was higher for the AP-HR admission vs stdAP during the exercise portion and overall (96% vs 87%, and 77% vs 74%), but these did not reach statistical significance ( P = 0.075 and P = 0.366). Conclusions Heart rate signals can safely and efficaciously be integrated in a wireless AP system to inform of physical activity. While exercise contributes to hypoglycemia among adolescents, even when using an AP system, informing the system of exercise via a HR monitor improved time <70 mg dL−1. Nonetheless, it did not significantly reduce the total number of hypoglycemic events, which were low in both groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In silico clinical trials, defined as "The use of individualized computer simulation in the development or regulatory evaluation of a medicinal product, medical device, or medical intervention," have been proposed as a possible strategy to reduce the regulatory costs of innovation and the time to market for biomedical products. We review some of the the literature on this topic, focusing in particular on those applications where the current practice is recognized as inadequate, as for example, the detection of unexpected severe adverse events too rare to be detected in a clinical trial, but still likely enough to be of concern. We then describe with more details two case studies, two successful applications of in silico clinical trial approaches, one relative to the University of Virginia/Padova simulator that the Food and Drug Administration has accepted as possible replacement for animal testing in the preclinical assessment of artificial pancreas technologies, and the second, an investigation of the probability of cardiac lead fracture, where a Bayesian network was used to combine in vivo and in silico observations, suggesting a whole new strategy of in silico-augmented clinical trials, to be used to increase the numerosity where recruitment is impossible, or to explore patients' phenotypes that are unlikely to appear in the trial cohort, but are still frequent enough to be of concern. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To pilot test a new closed-loop control technology to validate it for a further large clinical trial.Research Design and Methods: The t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ Technology (Tandem Diabetes Care) includes a Dexcom G6 sensor and a closed-loop algorithm implemented in the pump that 1) automates insulin correction boluses, 2) has a dedicated hypoglycemia safety system, and 3) gradually intensifies control overnight, aiming for blood glucose levels of approximately 100-120 mg/dL every morning.Results: Five patients with type 1 diabetes (mean age 52.8 years, 2/3 male/female, mean A1C 6.5%) used Control-IQ in an outpatient setting (hotel) for approximately 37 h. During the closed loop, mean glucose was 129 mg/dL (135/121 mg/dL during the day/night), time within target range 70-180 mg/dL was 87% (82%/94% during the day/night), and time <60 mg/dL was 1.1% (2.0%/0.0% during the day/night).Conclusions: Following this pilot trial, Control-IQ was deployed in several studies, including the large-scale National Institutes of Health International Diabetes Closed-Loop (iDCL) Trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: After testing of a wearable artificial pancreas (AP) during evening and night (E/N-AP) under free-living conditions in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D), we investigated AP during day and night (D/N-AP) for 1 month.Research Design and Methods: Twenty adult patients with T1D who completed a previous randomized crossover study comparing 2-month E/N-AP versus 2-month sensor augmented pump (SAP) volunteered for 1-month D/N-AP nonrandomized extension. AP was executed by a model predictive control algorithm run by a modified smartphone wirelessly connected to a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and insulin pump. CGM data were analyzed by intention-to-treat with percentage time-in-target (3.9-10 mmol/L) over 24 h as the primary end point.Results: Time-in-target (mean ± SD, %) was similar over 24 h with D/N-AP versus E/N-AP: 64.7 ± 7.6 vs. 63.6 ± 9.9 (P = 0.79), and both were higher than with SAP: 59.7 ± 9.6 (P = 0.01 and P = 0.06, respectively). Time below 3.9 mmol/L was similarly and significantly reduced by D/N-AP and E/N-AP versus SAP (both P < 0.001). SD of blood glucose concentration (mmol/L) was lower with D/N-AP versus E/N-AP during whole daytime: 3.2 ± 0.6 vs. 3.4 ± 0.7 (P = 0.003), morning: 2.7 ± 0.5 vs. 3.1 ± 0.5 (P = 0.02), and afternoon: 3.3 ± 0.6 vs. 3.5 ± 0.8 (P = 0.07), and was lower with D/N-AP versus SAP over 24 h: 3.1 ± 0.5 vs. 3.3 ± 0.6 (P = 0.049). Insulin delivery (IU) over 24 h was higher with D/N-AP and SAP than with E/N-AP: 40.6 ± 15.5 and 42.3 ± 15.5 vs. 36.6 ± 11.6 (P = 0.03 and P = 0.0004, respectively).Conclusions: D/N-AP and E/N-AP both achieved better glucose control than SAP under free-living conditions. Although time in the different glycemic ranges was similar between D/N-AP and E/N-AP, D/N-AP further reduces glucose variability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on and commercial development of the artificial pancreas (AP) continue to progress rapidly, and the AP promises to become a part of clinical care. In this report, members of the JDRF Artificial Pancreas Project Consortium in collaboration with the wider AP community 1) advocate for the use of continuous glucose monitoring glucose metrics as outcome measures in AP trials, in addition to HbA1c, and 2) identify a short set of basic, easily interpreted outcome measures to be reported in AP studies whenever feasible. Consensus on a broader range of measures remains challenging; therefore, reporting of additional metrics is encouraged as appropriate for individual AP studies or study groups. Greater consistency in reporting of basic outcome measures may facilitate the interpretation of study results by investigators, regulatory bodies, health care providers, payers, and patients themselves, thereby accelerating the widespread adoption of AP technology to improve the lives of people with type 1 diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the increasing availability of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), the artificial pancreas (AP) (the commonly accepted term for closed-loop control [CLC] of blood glucose [BG] levels in diabetes) has become a hot area in translational research and industrial development. After a prolonged period of inpatient, clinical research center trials using cumbersome systems, the field has progressed rapidly over the past 2 years to long-term, free-living studies running AP algorithms on smartphones. Although it is still not a cure, the AP is the most promising advance in the treatment of diabetes at this time. This issue of Diabetes Care presents today's AP state of the art, including reports on multinational home-use AP trials, studies in young children, the use of multihormonal approaches to mitigate meal-related hyperglycemia, and discussions of AP study designs and outcome measures. This collection of articles establishes the AP as a new diabetes treatment paradigm—not a single-function CGM or CSII device but an adaptable wearable network encompassing the patient in a digital treatment ecosystem. In its May 2014 issue, Diabetes Care featured the progress in the AP field in a series of articles labeled "Advances in Artificial Pancreas Development." In addition to an editorial discussing the state of the art of AP development in 2014 (1), the issue included original articles that covered a broad range of topics including analyses of the possible physiological inputs to CLC (2), real-time estimation of insulin sensitivity from CGM and insulin pump data (3), engineering of the AP algorithms (4), reports of predictive low-glucose suspend (LGS) systems (5), studies of overnight CLC at home (6), feasibility of the AP in type 2 diabetes (7), and the first around-the-clock outpatient CLC running a model predictive control (MPC) algorithm on a portable AP system (8). Since then, Nature, Science, JAMA, the New England Journal of Medicine, and Lancet have published overviews or research articles on the AP as well (9-15). These articles supported the conviction that a mechanical solution to the problem of maintaining strict control of diabetes without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia was rapidly progressing to a reality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Glucose control, glucose variability (GV), and risk for hypoglycemia are intimately related, and it is now evident that GV is important in both the physiology and pathophysiology of diabetes. However, its quantitative assessment is complex because blood glucose (BG) fluctuations are characterized by both amplitude and timing. Additional numerical complications arise from the asymmetry of the BG scale. In this Perspective, we focus on the acute manifestations of GV, particularly on hypoglycemia, and review measures assessing the amplitude of GV from routine self-monitored BG data, as well as its timing from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data. With availability of CGM, the latter is not only possible but also a requirement-we can now assess rapid glucose fluctuations in real time and relate their speed and magnitude to clinically relevant outcomes. Our primary message is that diabetes control is all about optimization and balance between two key markers-frequency of hypoglycemia and HbA1c reflecting average BG and primarily driven by the extent of hyperglycemia. GV is a primary barrier to this optimization, including to automated technologies such as the "artificial pancreas." Thus, it is time to standardize GV measurement and thereby streamline the assessment of its two most important components-amplitude and timing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and performance of the artificial pancreas ( AP) in adolescents with type 1 diabetes ( T1D) following insulin omission for food. Research design and methods In a randomized, cross-over trial, adolescents with T1D aged 13-18 yr were enrolled in a randomized, cross-over trial. On separate days, received either usual care ( UC) through their home insulin pump or used an AP system (Diabetes Assistant platform, continuous glucose monitor, and insulin pump). Approximately 1 h after admission, participants in both groups received an unannounced snack of 30 g carbohydrate, and 4 h later they received an 80 g lunch, for which both groups only received 75% of the calculated insulin dose to cover carbohydrates. On the UC day (but not the AP day), they received their full high blood glucose ( BG) correction factor at lunch. Each admission lasted approximately 8 h. Results A total of 16 participants completed the trial. On the AP day (compared to UC), mean BG was lower (197 ± 10 vs. 235 ± 14 mg/ dL) and time in range 70-180 mg/ dL was higher (43% ± 7 vs. 19% ± 7) (both p < 0.05) overall; these results held in the time following the snack and meal (also p < 0.05). During the trial, there were no differences between groups in the rate of hypoglycemia <70 mg/ dL. Conclusions The AP provided improvements in short-term glycemic control without increases in hypoglycemia following missed insulin for food in adolescents. Thus, the AP partly compensates for missed insulin boluses for food, a common occurrence in adolescent diabetes care. Further testing is needed in longer-term settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]