Search

BackgroundA composite metric for the quality of glycemia from continuous glucose monitor (CGM) tracings could be useful for assisting with basic clinical interpretation of CGM data.MethodsWe assembled a data set of 14-day CGM tracings from 225 insulin-treated adults with diabetes. Using a balanced incomplete block design, 330 clinicians who were highly experienced with CGM analysis and interpretation ranked the CGM tracings from best to worst quality of glycemia. We used principal component analysis and multiple regressions to develop a model to predict the clinician ranking based on seven standard metrics in an Ambulatory Glucose Profile: very low-glucose and low-glucose hypoglycemia; very high-glucose and high-glucose hyperglycemia; time in range; mean glucose; and coefficient of variation.ResultsThe analysis showed that clinician rankings depend on two components, one related to hypoglycemia that gives more weight to very low-glucose than to low-glucose and the other related to hyperglycemia that likewise gives greater weight to very high-glucose than to high-glucose. These two components should be calculated and displayed separately, but they can also be combined into a single Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) that corresponds closely to the clinician rankings of the overall quality of glycemia (r = 0.95). The GRI can be displayed graphically on a GRI Grid with the hypoglycemia component on the horizontal axis and the hyperglycemia component on the vertical axis. Diagonal lines divide the graph into five zones (quintiles) corresponding to the best (0th to 20th percentile) to worst (81st to 100th percentile) overall quality of glycemia. The GRI Grid enables users to track sequential changes within an individual over time and compare groups of individuals.ConclusionThe GRI is a single-number summary of the quality of glycemia. Its hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia components provide actionable scores and a graphical display (the GRI Grid) that can be used by clinicians and researchers to determine the glycemic effects of prescribed and investigational treatments.

OBJECTIVE: Limited information is available about glycemic outcomes with a closed-loop control (CLC) system compared with a predictive low-glucose suspend (PLGS) system. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: After 6 months of use of a CLC system in a randomized trial, 109 participants with type 1 diabetes (age range, 14-72 years; mean HbA1c, 7.1% [54 mmol/mol]) were randomly assigned to CLC (N = 54, Control-IQ) or PLGS (N = 55, Basal-IQ) groups for 3 months. The primary outcome was continuous glucose monitor (CGM)-measured time in range (TIR) for 70-180 mg/dL. Baseline CGM metrics were computed from the last 3 months of the preceding study. RESULTS: All 109 participants completed the study. Mean ± SD TIR was 71.1 ± 11.2% at baseline and 67.6 ± 12.6% using intention-to-treat analysis (69.1 ± 12.2% using per-protocol analysis excluding periods of study-wide suspension of device use) over 13 weeks on CLC vs. 70.0 ± 13.6% and 60.4 ± 17.1% on PLGS (difference = 5.9%; 95% CI 3.6%, 8.3%; P < 0.001). Time >180 mg/dL was lower in the CLC group than PLGS group (difference = -6.0%; 95% CI -8.4%, -3.7%; P < 0.001) while time

OBJECTIVE: Assess the efficacy of inControl AP, a mobile closed-loop control (CLC) system. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This protocol, NCT02985866, is a 3-month parallel-group, multicenter, randomized unblinded trial designed to compare mobile CLC with sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy. Eligibility criteria were type 1 diabetes for at least 1 year, use of insulin pumps for at least 6 months, age ≥14 years, and baseline HbA1c

OBJECTIVE: Artificial pancreas (AP) systems have been shown to improve glycemic control throughout the day and night in adults, adolescents, and children. However, AP testing remains limited during intense and prolonged exercise in adolescents and children. We present the performance of the Tandem Control-IQ AP system in adolescents and children during a winter ski camp study, where high altitude, low temperature, prolonged intense activity, and stress challenged glycemic control. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial, 24 adolescents (ages 13-18 years) and 24 school-aged children (6-12 years) with Type 1 diabetes (T1D) participated in a 48 hours ski camp (∼5 hours skiing/day) at three sites: Wintergreen, VA; Kirkwood, and Breckenridge, CO. Study participants were randomized 1:1 at each site. The control group used remote monitored sensor-augmented pump (RM-SAP), and the experimental group used the t: slim X2 with Control-IQ Technology AP system. All subjects were remotely monitored 24 hours per day by study staff. RESULTS: The Control-IQ system improved percent time within range (70-180 mg/dL) over the entire camp duration: 66.4 ± 16.4 vs 53.9 ± 24.8%; P = .01 in both children and adolescents. The AP system was associated with a significantly lower average glucose based on continuous glucose monitor data: 161 ± 29.9 vs 176.8 ± 36.5 mg/dL; P = .023. There were no differences between groups for hypoglycemia exposure or carbohydrate interventions. There were no adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the Control-IQ AP improved glycemic control and safely reduced exposure to hyperglycemia relative to RM-SAP in pediatric patients with T1D during prolonged intensive winter sport activities.

BackgroundThe relationship between daily psychological stress and BG fluctuations in type 1 diabetes (T1DM) is unclear. More research is needed to determine if stress-related BG changes should be considered in glucose control algorithms. This study in the usual free-living environment examined relationships among routine daily stressors and BG profile measures generated from CGM readings.MethodsA total of 33 participants with T1DM on insulin pumps wore a CGM device for 1 week and recorded daily ratings of psychological stress, carbohydrates, and insulin boluses.ResultsWithin-subjects ANCOVAs found a significant relationship between daily stress and indices of BG variability/instability (r = .172 to .185, P = .011 to .018, r(2) = 2.97% to 3.43%), increased % time in hypoglycemia (r = .153, P = .036, r(2) = 2.33%) and decreased carbohydrate consumption (r = -.157, P = .031, r(2) = 2.47%). Models accounted for more variance for individuals reporting the highest daily stress. There was no relationship between stress and mean daily glucose or low/high glucose risk indices.ConclusionsThese preliminary findings suggest that naturally occurring daily stressors can be associated with increased glucose instability and hypoglycemia, as well as decreased food consumption. In addition, findings support the hypothesis that some individuals are more metabolically reactive to stress. More rigorous studies using CGM technology are needed to understand whether the impact of daily stress on BG is clinically meaningful and if it is a behavioral factor that should be considered in glucose control systems for some individuals.

The surveillance error grid (SEG) analysis is a tool for analysis and visualization of blood glucose monitoring (BGM) errors, based on the opinions of 206 diabetes clinicians who rated 4 distinct treatment scenarios. Resulting from this large-scale inquiry is a matrix of 337 561 risk ratings, 1 for each pair of (reference, BGM) readings ranging from 20 to 580 mg/dl. The computation of the SEG is therefore complex and in need of automation. The SEG software introduced in this article automates the task of assigning a degree of risk to each data point for a set of measured and reference blood glucose values so that the data can be distributed into 8 risk zones. The software's 2 main purposes are to (1) distribute a set of BG Monitor data into 8 risk zones ranging from none to extreme and (2) present the data in a color coded display to promote visualization. Besides aggregating the data into 8 zones corresponding to levels of risk, the SEG computes the number and percentage of data pairs in each zone and the number/percentage of data pairs above/below the diagonal line in each zone, which are associated with BGM errors creating risks for hypo- or hyperglycemia, respectively. To illustrate the action of the SEG software we first present computer-simulated data stratified along error levels defined by ISO 15197:2013. This allows the SEG to be linked to this established standard. Further illustration of the SEG procedure is done with a series of previously published data, which reflect the performance of BGM devices and test strips under various environmental conditions. We conclude that the SEG software is a useful addition to the SEG analysis presented in this journal, developed to assess the magnitude of clinical risk from analytically inaccurate data in a variety of high-impact situations such as intensive care and disaster settings.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the safety and efficacy of automated insulin delivery (AID) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) at high risk for hypoglycemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants were 72 adults with T1D who used an insulin pump with Clarke Hypoglycemia Perception Awareness scale score >3 and/or had severe hypoglycemia during the previous 6 months confirmed by time below range (TBR; defined as sensor glucose [SG] reading <70 mg/dL) of at least 5% during 2 weeks of blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Parallel-arm, randomized trial (2:1) of AID (Tandem t:slim ×2 with Control-IQ technology) versus CGM and pump therapy for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was TBR change from baseline. Secondary outcomes included time in target range (TIR; 70–180 mg/dL), time above range (TAR), mean SG reading, and time with glucose level <54 mg/dL. An optional 12-week extension with AID was offered to all participants. RESULTS: Compared with the sensor and pump (S&P), AID resulted in significant reduction of TBR by −3.7% (95% CI −4.8, −2.6), P < 0.001; an 8.6% increase in TIR (95% CI 5.2, 12.1), P < 0.001; and a −5.3% decrease in TAR (95% CI −87.7, −1.8), P = 0.004. Mean SG reading remained similar in the AID and S&P groups. During the 12-week extension, the effects of AID were sustained in the AID group and reproduced in the S&P group. Two severe hypoglycemic episodes occurred using AID. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with T1D at high risk for hypoglycemia, AID reduced the risk for hypoglycemia more than twofold, as quantified by TBR, while improving TIR and reducing hyperglycemia. Hence, AID is strongly recommended for this specific population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]