BACKGROUND: Several clinical trials have been performed to assess safety and efficacy of closed-loop control. Some included physical activity (PA), with the goal of challenging the control algorithms with a rapid change in insulin sensitivity while reducing the risk of hypoglycemia. However, the question remains as to the necessity to inform the control algorithm on the imminent PA. The aim here is to assess in silico (i) if it is necessary to announce upcoming PA and (ii) if this is the case, what is the safest strategy of basal insulin reduction in the context of the closed-loop control. METHODS: We modified the University of Virginia/Padova type 1 diabetes simulator to incorporate the effect of PA based on a study in healthy subjects that demonstrated an almost doubling of insulin sensitivity during PA versus rest. Two in silico experiments, including a PA session, have been simulated on the virtual adult population: one in the absence of and one with different degrees of reductions and durations of basal insulin infusion rates. RESULTS: Most in silico subjects experienced hypoglycemia in the absence of basal insulin adjustment. We show that, in the absence of patient-specific information, a safe and effective strategy is to reduce basal insulin by 50% starting 90 min before exercise and by 30% during exercise. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that control algorithms could benefit by knowing an upcoming PA. Ideally, the control algorithm should be informed about the patient-specific basal insulin reduction pattern. An alternative strategy that has been proposed here has been deemed safe and effective in in silico experiments.
BACKGROUND: Several clinical trials have been performed to assess safety and efficacy of closed-loop control. Some included physical activity (PA), with the goal of challenging the control algorithms with a rapid change in insulin sensitivity while reducing the risk of hypoglycemia. However, the question remains as to the necessity to inform the control algorithm on the imminent PA. The aim here is to assess in silico (i) if it is necessary to announce upcoming PA and (ii) if this is the case, what is the safest strategy of basal insulin reduction in the context of the closed-loop control. METHODS: We modified the University of Virginia/Padova type 1 diabetes simulator to incorporate the effect of PA based on a study in healthy subjects that demonstrated an almost doubling of insulin sensitivity during PA versus rest. Two in silico experiments, including a PA session, have been simulated on the virtual adult population: one in the absence of and one with different degrees of reductions and durations of basal insulin infusion rates. RESULTS: Most in silico subjects experienced hypoglycemia in the absence of basal insulin adjustment. We show that, in the absence of patient-specific information, a safe and effective strategy is to reduce basal insulin by 50% starting 90 min before exercise and by 30% during exercise. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that control algorithms could benefit by knowing an upcoming PA. Ideally, the control algorithm should be informed about the patient-specific basal insulin reduction pattern. An alternative strategy that has been proposed here has been deemed safe and effective in in silico experiments.
Authors: Lalo Magni; Davide M Raimondo; Chiara Dalla Man; Marc Breton; Stephen Patek; Giuseppe De Nicolao; Claudio Cobelli; Boris P Kovatchev Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2008-07
Authors: Firas H El-Khatib; Steven J Russell; David M Nathan; Robert G Sutherlin; Edward R Damiano Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2010-04-14 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Marc Breton; Anne Farret; Daniela Bruttomesso; Stacey Anderson; Lalo Magni; Stephen Patek; Chiara Dalla Man; Jerome Place; Susan Demartini; Simone Del Favero; Chiara Toffanin; Colleen Hughes-Karvetski; Eyal Dassau; Howard Zisser; Francis J Doyle; Giuseppe De Nicolao; Angelo Avogaro; Claudio Cobelli; Eric Renard; Boris Kovatchev Journal: Diabetes Date: 2012-06-11 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: S D Patek; L Magni; E Dassau; C Karvetski; C Toffanin; G De Nicolao; S Del Favero; M Breton; C Dalla Man; E Renard; H Zisser; F J Doyle; C Cobelli; B P Kovatchev Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2012-04-03 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Roman Hovorka; Janet M Allen; Daniela Elleri; Ludovic J Chassin; Julie Harris; Dongyuan Xing; Craig Kollman; Tomas Hovorka; Anne Mette F Larsen; Marianna Nodale; Alessandra De Palma; Malgorzata E Wilinska; Carlo L Acerini; David B Dunger Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-02-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Stuart A Weinzimer; Garry M Steil; Karena L Swan; Jim Dziura; Natalie Kurtz; William V Tamborlane Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2008-02-05 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: P G Jacobs; J El Youssef; R Reddy; N Resalat; D Branigan; J Condon; N Preiser; K Ramsey; M Jones; C Edwards; K Kuehl; J Leitschuh; U Rajhbeharrysingh; J R Castle Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2016-08-15 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: Danielle Groat; Maria A Grando; Bithika Thompson; Pedro Neto; Hiral Soni; Mary E Boyle; Marilyn Bailey; Curtiss B Cook Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2017-04-13