P A Bakhtiani1, J El Youssef2, A K Duell1, D L Branigan1, P G Jacobs3, M R Lasarev4, J R Castle1, W K Ward1. 1. Harold Schnitzer Diabetes Center, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239. 2. Harold Schnitzer Diabetes Center, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239. Electronic address: elyoussj@ohsu.edu. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Oregon Health and Science University, 33030 SW Bond Ave., Portland, OR 97239. 4. Oregon Institute of Occupational Health Sciences, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Bala Gopakumaran; Heather M Duman; Douglas P Overholser; Isaac F Federiuk; Matthew J Quinn; Michael D Wood; W Kenneth Ward Journal: Artif Organs Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 3.094
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: Arianne C van Bon; Yoeri M Luijf; Rob Koebrugge; Robin Koops; Joost B L Hoekstra; J Hans DeVries Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Richard M Bergenstal; David C Klonoff; Satish K Garg; Bruce W Bode; Melissa Meredith; Robert H Slover; Andrew J Ahmann; John B Welsh; Scott W Lee; Francine R Kaufman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-06-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Peter G Jacobs; Navid Resalat; Joseph El Youssef; Ravi Reddy; Deborah Branigan; Nicholas Preiser; John Condon; Jessica Castle Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2015-10-05
Authors: Chirath Hettiarachchi; Elena Daskalaki; Jane Desborough; Christopher J Nolan; David O'Neal; Hanna Suominen Journal: JMIR Diabetes Date: 2022-02-24
Authors: Ingrid Anna Teigen; Misbah Riaz; Marte Kierulf Åm; Sverre Christian Christiansen; Sven Magnus Carlsen Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol Date: 2022-09-21
Authors: Jessica R Castle; Joseph El Youssef; Parkash A Bakhtiani; Yu Cai; Jade M Stobbe; Deborah Branigan; Katrina Ramsey; Peter Jacobs; Ravi Reddy; Mark Woods; W Kenneth Ward Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 19.112