Aims/hypothesis The aim of this study was to assess whether the dual-hormone (insulin and glucagon) artificial pancreas reduces hypoglycaemia compared with the single-hormone (insulin alone) artificial pancreas during two types of exercise. Methods An open-label randomised crossover study comparing both systems in 17 adults with type 1 diabetes (age, 37.2 ± 13.6 years; HbA 1c, 8.0 ± 1.0% [63.9 ± 10.2 mmol/mol]) during two exercise types on an ergocycle and matched for energy expenditure: continuous (60% V : O 2peak for 60 min) and interval (2 min alternating periods at 85% and 50% V : O 2peak for 40 min, with two 10 min periods at 45% V : O 2peak at the start and end of the session). Blocked randomisation (size of four) with a 1:1:1:1 allocation ratio was computer generated. The artificial pancreas was applied from 15:30 hours until 19:30 hours; exercise was started at 18:00 hours and announced 20 min earlier to the systems. The study was conducted at the Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal. Results During single-hormone control compared with dualhormone control, exercise-induced hypoglycaemia (plasma glucose <3.3 mmol/l with symptoms or <3.0 mmol/l regardless of symptoms) was observed in four (23.5%) vs two (11.8%) interventions (p = 0.5) for continuous exercise and in six (40%) vs one (6.25%) intervention (p = 0.07) for interval exercise. For the pooled analysis (single vs dual hormone), the median (interquartile range) percentage time spent at glucose levels below 4.0 mmol/l was 11% (0.0-46.7%) vs 0% (0-0%; p = 0.0001) and at glucose levels between 4.0 and 10.0 mmol/l was 71.4% (53.2-100%) vs 100% (100-100%; p = 0.003). Higher doses of glucagon were needed during continuous (0.126 ± 0.057 mg) than during interval exercise (0.093 ± 0.068 mg) (p = 0.03), with no reported side-effects in all interventions.A. Haidar and R. Rabasa-Lhoret are joint senior authors.Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00125-016-4107-0) contains peer-reviewed but unedited supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.* Rémi Rabasa-Lhoret

Dexcom and Enlite demonstrated comparable overall performances during rest and physical activity. However, a lower accuracy was observed during exercise for both sensors, necessitating a fine-tuning of their performance with physical activity.

The late Peter Stewart developed an approach to the analysis of acid-base disturbances in biological systems based on basic physical-chemical principles. His key argument was that the traditional carbon dioxide/bicarbonate analysis with just the use of the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation does not account for the important role in the regulation of H(+) concentration played by strong ions, weak acids and water itself. Acceptance of his analysis has been limited because it requires a complicated set of calculations to account for all the variables and it does not provide simple clinical guidance. However, the analysis can be made more pragmatic by using a series of simple equations to quantify the major processes in acid-base disturbances. These include the traditional PCO2 component and the addition of four metabolic processes, which we classify as "water-effects," "chloride-effects," "albumin effects," and "others." Six values are required for the analysis: [Na(+)], [Cl(-)], pH, Pco2, albumin concentration, and base excess. The advantage of this approach is that it gives a better understanding of the mechanisms behind acid-base abnormalities and more readily leads to clinical actions that can prevent or correct the abnormalities. We have developed a simple free mobile app that can be used to input the necessary values to use this approach at the bedside (Physical/Chemical Acid Base Calculator).