Kamuran Turksoy1, Iman Hajizadeh2, Nicole Hobbs1, Jennifer Kilkus3, Elizabeth Littlejohn3,4, Sediqeh Samadi2, Jianyuan Feng2, Mert Sevil1, Caterina Lazaro5, Julia Ritthaler6, Brooks Hibner6, Nancy Devine3, Laurie Quinn7, Ali Cinar1,2. 1. 1 Department of Biomedical Engineering and Illinois Institute of Technology , Chicago, Illinois. 2. 2 Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology , Chicago, Illinois. 3. 3 Section of Endocrinology, Department of Pediatrics and Medicine, Kovler Diabetes Center, University of Chicago , Chicago, Illinois. 4. 4 Sparrow Medical Group/Michigan State University , Lansing, Michigan. 5. 5 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology , Chicago, Illinois. 6. 6 Division of Biological Sciences, University of Chicago , Chicago, Illinois. 7. 7 College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago , Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exercise challenges people with type 1 diabetes in controlling their glucose concentration (GC). A multivariable adaptive artificial pancreas (MAAP) may lessen the burden. METHODS: The MAAP operates without any user input and computes insulin based on continuous glucose monitor and physical activity signals. To analyze performance, 18 60-h closed-loop experiments with 96 exercise sessions with three different protocols were completed. Each day, the subjects completed one resistance and one treadmill exercise (moderate continuous training [MCT] or high-intensity interval training [HIIT]). The primary outcome is time spent in each glycemic range during the exercise + recovery period. Secondary measures include average GC and average change in GC during each exercise modality. RESULTS: The GC during exercise + recovery periods were within the euglycemic range (70-180 mg/dL) for 69.9% of the time and within a safe glycemic range for exercise (70-250 mg/dL) for 93.0% of the time. The exercise sessions are defined to begin 30 min before the start of exercise and end 2 h after start of exercise. The GC were within the severe hypoglycemia (<55 mg/dL), moderate hypoglycemia (55-70 mg/dL), moderate hyperglycemia (180-250 mg/dL), and severe hyperglycemia (>250 mg/dL) for 0.9%, 1.3%, 23.1%, and 4.8% of the time, respectively. The average GC decline during exercise differed with exercise type (P = 0.0097) with a significant difference between the MCT and resistance (P = 0.0075). To prevent large GC decreases leading to hypoglycemia, MAAP recommended carbohydrates in 59% of MCT, 50% of HIIT, and 39% of resistance sessions. CONCLUSIONS: A consistent GC decline occurred in exercise and recovery periods, which differed with exercise type. The average GC at the start of exercise was above target (185.5 ± 56.6 mg/dL for MCT, 166.9 ± 61.9 mg/dL for resistance training, and 171.7 ± 41.4 mg/dL HIIT), making a small decrease desirable. Hypoglycemic events occurred in 14.6% of exercise sessions and represented only 2.22% of the exercise and recovery period.
BACKGROUND: Exercise challenges people with type 1 diabetes in controlling their glucose concentration (GC). A multivariable adaptive artificial pancreas (MAAP) may lessen the burden. METHODS: The MAAP operates without any user input and computes insulin based on continuous glucose monitor and physical activity signals. To analyze performance, 18 60-h closed-loop experiments with 96 exercise sessions with three different protocols were completed. Each day, the subjects completed one resistance and one treadmill exercise (moderate continuous training [MCT] or high-intensity interval training [HIIT]). The primary outcome is time spent in each glycemic range during the exercise + recovery period. Secondary measures include average GC and average change in GC during each exercise modality. RESULTS: The GC during exercise + recovery periods were within the euglycemic range (70-180 mg/dL) for 69.9% of the time and within a safe glycemic range for exercise (70-250 mg/dL) for 93.0% of the time. The exercise sessions are defined to begin 30 min before the start of exercise and end 2 h after start of exercise. The GC were within the severe hypoglycemia (<55 mg/dL), moderate hypoglycemia (55-70 mg/dL), moderate hyperglycemia (180-250 mg/dL), and severe hyperglycemia (>250 mg/dL) for 0.9%, 1.3%, 23.1%, and 4.8% of the time, respectively. The average GC decline during exercise differed with exercise type (P = 0.0097) with a significant difference between the MCT and resistance (P = 0.0075). To prevent large GC decreases leading to hypoglycemia, MAAP recommended carbohydrates in 59% of MCT, 50% of HIIT, and 39% of resistance sessions. CONCLUSIONS: A consistent GC decline occurred in exercise and recovery periods, which differed with exercise type. The average GC at the start of exercise was above target (185.5 ± 56.6 mg/dL for MCT, 166.9 ± 61.9 mg/dL for resistance training, and 171.7 ± 41.4 mg/dL HIIT), making a small decrease desirable. Hypoglycemic events occurred in 14.6% of exercise sessions and represented only 2.22% of the exercise and recovery period.
Entities:
Keywords:
Artificial pancreas; Exercise; Type 1 diabetes.
Authors: Sarah K McMahon; Luis D Ferreira; Nirubasini Ratnam; Raymond J Davey; Leanne M Youngs; Elizabeth A Davis; Paul A Fournier; Timothy W Jones Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2006-11-21 Impact factor: 5.958
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: Steven J Russell; Firas H El-Khatib; Manasi Sinha; Kendra L Magyar; Katherine McKeon; Laura G Goergen; Courtney Balliro; Mallory A Hillard; David M Nathan; Edward R Damiano Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-06-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rebecca A Harvey; Eyal Dassau; Wendy C Bevier; Dale E Seborg; Lois Jovanovič; Francis J Doyle; Howard C Zisser Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 6.118
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: Steven J Russell; Firas H El-Khatib; David M Nathan; Kendra L Magyar; John Jiang; Edward R Damiano Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Jennifer L Sherr; Eda Cengiz; Cesar C Palerm; Bud Clark; Natalie Kurtz; Anirban Roy; Lori Carria; Martin Cantwell; William V Tamborlane; Stuart A Weinzimer Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2013-06-11 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Chirath Hettiarachchi; Elena Daskalaki; Jane Desborough; Christopher J Nolan; David O'Neal; Hanna Suominen Journal: JMIR Diabetes Date: 2022-02-24
Authors: Marzia Cescon; Divya Choudhary; Jordan E Pinsker; Vikash Dadlani; Mei Mei Church; Yogish C Kudva; Francis J Doyle Iii; Eyal Dassau Journal: Comput Biol Med Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 6.698