Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Dec 6;19(24):5386.
doi: 10.3390/s19245386.

Continuous Glucose Monitors and Activity Trackers to Inform Insulin Dosing in Type 1 Diabetes: The University of Virginia Contribution

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Continuous Glucose Monitors and Activity Trackers to Inform Insulin Dosing in Type 1 Diabetes: The University of Virginia Contribution

Chiara Fabris et al. Sensors (Basel). .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Objective: Suboptimal insulin dosing in type 1 diabetes (T1D) is frequently associated with time-varying insulin requirements driven by various psycho-behavioral and physiological factors influencing insulin sensitivity (IS). Among these, physical activity has been widely recognized as a trigger of altered IS both during and following the exercise effort, but limited indication is available for the management of structured and (even more) unstructured activity in T1D. In this work, we present two methods to inform insulin dosing with biosignals from wearable sensors to improve glycemic control in individuals with T1D. Research Design and Methods: Continuous glucose monitors (CGM) and activity trackers are leveraged by the methods. The first method uses CGM records to estimate IS in real time and adjust the insulin dose according to a person's insulin needs; the second method uses step count data to inform the bolus calculation with the residual glucose-lowering effects of recently performed (structured or unstructured) physical activity. The methods were tested in silico within the University of Virginia/Padova T1D Simulator. A standard bolus calculator and the proposed "smart" systems were deployed in the control of one meal in presence of increased/decreased IS (Study 1) and following a 1-hour exercise bout (Study 2). Postprandial glycemic control was assessed in terms of time spent in different glycemic ranges and low/high blood glucose indices (LBGI/HBGI), and compared between the dosing strategies. Results: In Study 1, the CGM-informed system allowed to reduce exposure to hypoglycemia in presence of increased IS (percent time < 70 mg/dL: 6.1% versus 9.9%; LBGI: 1.9 versus 3.2) and exposure to hyperglycemia in presence of decreased IS (percent time > 180 mg/dL: 14.6% versus 18.3%; HBGI: 3.0 versus 3.9), tending toward optimal control. In Study 2, the step count-informed system allowed to reduce hypoglycemia (percent time < 70 mg/dL: 3.9% versus 13.4%; LBGI: 1.7 versus 3.2) at the cost of a minor increase in exposure to hyperglycemia (percent time > 180 mg/dL: 11.9% versus 7.5%; HBGI: 2.4 versus 1.5). Conclusions: We presented and validated in silico two methods for the smart dosing of prandial insulin in T1D. If seen within an ensemble, the two algorithms provide alternatives to individuals with T1D for improving insulin dosing accommodating a large variety of treatment options. Future work will be devoted to test the safety and efficacy of the methods in free-living conditions.

Keywords: activity trackers; continuous glucose monitors; smart insulin dosing; type 1 diabetes.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Diagram representing the ensemble of the two designed methods that renders smart insulin dosing flexible to individual therapy policies.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Study 1 results: Postprandial exposure to hypoglycemia (x-axis) and hyperglycemia (y-axis) obtained with the use of the standard (light gray) and smart (dark gray) bolus calculator in presence of increased (square) and decreased (diamond) insulin sensitivity (IS), as compared to the optimal control achieved in nominal IS conditions (black circle).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Study 1 results: Average blood glucose (BG) profiles obtained with the use of the standard (light gray) and smart (dark gray) bolus calculator for the increased (solid) and decreased (dotted) insulin sensitivity (IS) scenarios, as compared to optimal control (solid black).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Study 2 results: Envelope of postprandial blood glucose (BG) traces obtained with the use of the standard (dotted line and light gray) and smart (solid line and dark gray) bolus calculator following a 1-hour aerobic exercise session.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Study 2 results: Summary of postprandial GV indices obtained with the use of the standard (light gray) and smart (dark gray) bolus calculator following a 1-hour aerobic exercise session.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Cobelli C., Dalla Man C., Sparacino G., Magni L., De Nicolao G., Kovatchev B.P. Diabetes: Models, Signals, and Control. IEEE Rev. Biomed. Eng. 2009;2:54–96. doi: 10.1109/RBME.2009.2036073. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. American Diabetes Association Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2014;37:S81–S90. doi: 10.2337/dc14-S081. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Doyle E.A., Weinzimer S.A., Steffen A.T., Ahern J.A., Vincent M., Tamborlane W.V. A Randomized, Prospective Trial Comparing the Efficacy of Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion with Multiple Daily Injections Using Insulin Glargine. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:1554–1558. doi: 10.2337/diacare.27.7.1554. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Klonoff D.C., Prahalad P. Performance of Cleared Blood Glucose Meters. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 2015;9:895–910. doi: 10.1177/1932296815584797. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Klonoff D.C., Ahn D., Drincic A. Continuous Glucose Monitoring: A Review of the Technology and Clinical Use. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2017;133:178–192. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2017.08.005. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

Feedback