Associations of clinical, psychological, and sociodemographic characteristics and ecological momentary assessment completion in the 10-week Hypo-METRICS study: Hypoglycaemia MEasurements ThResholds and ImpaCtS.

INTRODUCTION: Reporting of hypoglycaemia and its impact in clinical studies is often retrospective and subject to recall bias. We developed the Hypo-METRICS app to measure the daily physical, psychological, and social impact of hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes in real-time using ecological momentary assessment (EMA). To help assess its utility, we aimed to determine Hypo-METRICS app completion rates and factors associated with completion. METHODS: Adults with diabetes recruited into the Hypo-METRICS study were given validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at baseline. Over 10 weeks, they wore a blinded continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and were asked to complete three daily EMAs about hypoglycaemia and aspects of daily functioning, and two weekly sleep and productivity PROMs on the bespoke Hypo-METRICS app. We conducted linear regression to determine factors associated with app engagement, assessed by EMA and PROM completion rates and CGM metrics. RESULTS: In 602 participants (55% men; 54% type 2 diabetes; median(IQR) age 56 (45-66) years; diabetes duration 19 (11-27) years; HbA1c 57 (51-65) mmol/mol), median(IQR) overall app completion rate was 91 (84-96)%, ranging from 90 (81-96)%, 89 (80-94)% and 94(87-97)% for morning, afternoon and evening check-ins, respectively. Older age, routine CGM use, greater time below 3.0 mmol/L, and active sensor time were positively associated with app completion. DISCUSSION: High app completion across all app domains and participant characteristics indicates the Hypo-METRICS app is an acceptable research tool for collecting detailed data on hypoglycaemia frequency and impact in real-time.

Fall in prevalence of impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia in individuals with type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: Impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IAH) has been reported to affect up to a third of people with type 1 diabetes. Whether the increased use of sensor technology has changed its prevalence remains unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the current prevalence of IAH and its change over time in a cohort of individuals with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: IAH was assessed using the modified Clarke questionnaire in adults with type 1 diabetes. Participants were recruited from the diabetes outpatient clinic from February 2020 through April 2021. The scores were compared to similar data collected during previous assessments in 2006, 2010 and 2016 respectively. RESULTS: A total of 488 individuals (51.2% male) with a mean (±SD) age of 51.3 ± 15.9 years, median [Q1-Q3] diabetes duration of 30 [16-40] years and mean HbA1c of 60 ± 12 mmol/mol (7.7 ± 1.1%) were included. Sensors were used by 85% of the study population. IAH was present among 78 (16.0%) participants, whereas 86 (17.6%) participants had a history of severe hypoglycaemia. By comparison, the prevalence of IAH equalled 32.5% in 2006, 32.3% in 2010 and 30.1% in 2016 (p for trend <0.001), while the proportion of individuals reporting severe hypoglycaemia equalled 21.2%, 46.7% and 49.8% respectively (p for trend 0.010). Comparing sequential assessments over time, the proportion of individuals with persistent IAH decreased from 74.0% and 63.6% between 2006 and 2016 to 32.5% in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals with type 1 diabetes and high use of sensor technology, the current prevalence of IAH was 16%, about 50% lower as compared to previous years.

High diabetes-specific distress among adults with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia despite widespread use of sensor technology.

AIMS: Impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IAH) has been associated with increased diabetes distress and use of sensor technology can reduce diabetes distress. The aim of this study was to examine diabetes-specific distress (emotions, cognitions, behaviours) in relation to IAH status and use of glucose sensors in people with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Individuals with type 1 diabetes from an academic diabetes outpatient clinic completed the Clarke questionnaire (to assess hypoglycaemic awareness), Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID-5), Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey-II (HFS-II), Attitudes to Awareness of Hypoglycaemia Survey (A2A), Nijmegen Clinical Screening Instrument Survey (NCSI) and Hyperglycaemia Avoidance Scale (HAS). RESULTS: Of the 422 participants (51.9% male, diabetes duration 30 [16-40] years, HbA1c 60 ± 11 mmol/mol [7.6 ± 1.0%], 351 [88.2%] used a glucose sensor; 82 [19.4%]) had IAH. Compared to individuals with normal awareness, those with IAH more often had PAID-5 scores ≥8 (35.4% vs. 21.5%, p = 0.008) and higher scores on all HFS-II subscores (total [40.2 ± 21.5 vs. 27.9 ± 17.2, p < 0.001]), HFS-II behaviour (18.5 ± 10.0 vs. 15.1 ± 8.0, p = 0.005), HFS-II worry (21.8 ± 13.5 vs. 12.7 ± 10.9, p < 0.001), HAS worries (17.5 ± 7.3 vs. 14.3 ± 7.0, p < 0.001) and NCSI hypoglycaemia items. HAS behaviour, A2A and NCSI hyperglycaemia scores did not differ between individuals with or without IAH. Restricting the analyses to individuals using a glucose sensor did not materially change the results. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes-specific distress remains a major problem among individuals with type 1 diabetes, particularly those with IAH, despite the widespread use of (intermittently scanned) sensor technology. Further studies are needed to examine strategies to lower diabetes-specific distress in individuals with IAH.

Limited impact of impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia and severe hypoglycaemia on the inflammatory profile of people with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: To investigate whether a history of severe hypoglycaemia (SH) or the associated presence of impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IAH) is characterized by a pro-inflammatory profile in people with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We measured circulating inflammatory markers and pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokine production after ex vivo stimulation of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) in a well-characterized cohort of individuals with type 1 diabetes (n = 239) and in people without diabetes (n = 56). Data were corrected for confounders by using multivariate linear regression models. RESULTS: People with type 1 diabetes had higher circulating concentrations of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP; 0.91 [0.36-2.25] vs. 0.52 [0.20-0.98] pg/mL, P < 0.001 and interleukin-18-binding protein (IL-18BP; 1746 [1304-2112] vs. 1381 [1191-1807] pg/mL; P = 0.001) than those without diabetes. In multivariate analysis, only higher hs-CRP concentrations persisted. Neither circulating immune cells nor ex vivo cytokine levels produced by PBMCs in response to an extensive panel of stimuli differed in groups defined by awareness state or a history of SH, apart from elevated IL-18BP in people with, versus those without, history of SH (1524 [1227-1903] vs. 1913 [1459-2408] pg/mL; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: IAH or history of SH in people with type 1 diabetes was not associated with altered inflammatory profiles, arguing against chronically elevated inflammatory activity mediating the increased cardiovascular risk associated with hypoglycaemia. The finding of higher circulating concentrations of IL-18BP in individuals with a history of SH requires further investigation.

Relationship Between Sensor-Detected Hypoglycemia and Patient-Reported Hypoglycemia in People With Type 1 and Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes: The Hypo-METRICS Study.

OBJECTIVE: Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has led to greater detection of hypoglycemia; the clinical significance of this is not fully understood. The Hypoglycaemia-Measurement, Thresholds and Impacts (Hypo-METRICS) study was designed to investigate the rates and duration of sensor-detected hypoglycemia (SDH) and their relationship with person-reported hypoglycemia (PRH) in people living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (T2D) with prior experience of hypoglycemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We recruited 276 participants with T1D and 321 with T2D who wore a blinded CGM and recorded PRH in the Hypo-METRICS app over 10 weeks. Rates of SDH <70 mg/dL, SDH <54 mg/dL, and PRH were expressed as median episodes per week. Episodes of SDH were matched to episodes of PRH that occurred within 1 h. RESULTS: Median [interquartile range] rates of hypoglycemia were significantly higher in T1D versus T2D; for SDH <70 mg/dL (6.5 [3.8-10.4] vs. 2.1 [0.8-4.0]), SDH <54 mg/dL (1.2 [0.4-2.5] vs. 0.2 [0.0-0.5]), and PRH (3.9 [2.4-5.9] vs. 1.1 [0.5-2.0]). Overall, 65% of SDH <70 mg/dL was not associated with PRH, and 43% of PRH had no associated SDH. The median proportion of SDH associated with PRH in T1D was higher for SDH <70 mg/dL (40% vs. 22%) and SDH <54 mg/dL (47% vs. 25%) than in T2D. CONCLUSIONS: The novel findings are that at least half of CGM hypoglycemia is asymptomatic, even below 54 mg/dL, and many reported symptomatic hypoglycemia episodes happen above 70 mg/dL. In the clinical and research setting, these episodes cannot be used interchangeably, and both need to be recorded and addressed.

A Comparison of the Rates of Clock-Based Nocturnal Hypoglycemia and Hypoglycemia While Asleep Among People Living with Diabetes: Findings from the Hypo-METRICS Study.

Introduction: Nocturnal hypoglycemia is generally calculated between 00:00 and 06:00. However, those hours may not accurately reflect sleeping patterns and it is unknown whether this leads to bias. We therefore compared hypoglycemia rates while asleep with those of clock-based nocturnal hypoglycemia in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods: Participants from the Hypo-METRICS study wore a blinded continuous glucose monitor and a Fitbit Charge 4 activity monitor for 10 weeks. They recorded details of episodes of hypoglycemia using a smartphone app. Sensor-detected hypoglycemia (SDH) and person-reported hypoglycemia (PRH) were categorized as nocturnal (00:00-06:00 h) versus diurnal and while asleep versus awake defined by Fitbit sleeping intervals. Paired-sample Wilcoxon tests were used to examine the differences in hypoglycemia rates. Results: A total of 574 participants [47% T1D, 45% women, 89% white, median (interquartile range) age 56 (45-66) years, and hemoglobin A1c 7.3% (6.8-8.0)] were included. Median sleep duration was 6.1 h (5.2-6.8), bedtime and waking time ∼23:30 and 07:30, respectively. There were higher median weekly rates of SDH and PRH while asleep than clock-based nocturnal SDH and PRH among people with T1D, especially for SDH <70 mg/dL (1.7 vs. 1.4, P < 0.001). Higher weekly rates of SDH while asleep than nocturnal SDH were found among people with T2D, especially for SDH <70 mg/dL (0.8 vs. 0.7, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Using 00:00 to 06:00 as a proxy for sleeping hours may underestimate hypoglycemia while asleep. Future hypoglycemia research should consider the use of sleep trackers to record sleep and reflect hypoglycemia while asleep more accurately. The trial registration number is NCT04304963.

Associations Between Hypoglycemia Awareness Status and Symptoms of Hypoglycemia Among Adults with Type 1 or Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes Using the Hypo-METRICS Smartphone Application.

Introduction: This study examined associations between hypoglycemia awareness status and hypoglycemia symptoms reported in real-time using the novel Hypoglycaemia-MEasurement, ThResholds and ImpaCtS (Hypo-METRICS) smartphone application (app) among adults with insulin-treated type 1 (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods: Adults who experienced at least one hypoglycemic episode in the previous 3 months were recruited to the Hypo-METRICS study. They prospectively reported hypoglycemia episodes using the app for 10 weeks. Any of eight hypoglycemia symptoms were considered present if intensity was rated between "A little bit" to "Very much" and absent if rated "Not at all." Associations between hypoglycemia awareness (as defined by Gold score) and hypoglycemia symptoms were modeled using mixed-effects binary logistic regression, adjusting for glucose monitoring method and diabetes duration. Results: Of 531 participants (48% T1D, 52% T2D), 45% were women, 91% white, and 59% used Flash or continuous glucose monitoring. Impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH) was associated with lower odds of reporting autonomic symptoms than normal awareness of hypoglycemia (NAH) (T1D odds ratio [OR] 0.43 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.25-0.73], P = 0.002); T2D OR 0.51 [95% CI 0.26-0.99], P = 0.048), with no differences in neuroglycopenic symptoms. In T1D, relative to NAH, IAH was associated with higher odds of reporting autonomic symptoms at a glucose concentration <54 than >70 mg/dL (OR 2.18 [95% CI 1.21-3.94], P = 0.010). Conclusion: The Hypo-METRICS app is sensitive to differences in hypoglycemia symptoms according to hypoglycemia awareness in both diabetes types. Given its high ecological validity and low recall bias, the app may be a useful tool in research and clinical settings. The clinical trial registration number is NCT04304963.

Improved glucometrics in people with type 1 diabetes 1 year into the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Various studies have shown a number of glycemic parameters to improve over several weeks in people with type 1 diabetes during the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic. Whether and to what extent such improvement is sustained during following COVID-19 surges remains unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate glycemic parameters during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in people with type 1 diabetes and to determine factors associated with glycemic improvement. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was an observational cohort study in people with type 1 diabetes, aged ≥16 years. We compared glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and flash glucose monitoring (FGM) downloads between the prelockdown period and approximately 1 year thereafter. Using logistic regression analysis, we assessed associations between an HbA1c reduction of at least 0.5% (~5.5 mmol/mol) with baseline clinical characteristics and self-reported changes in psychological well-being and lifestyle behavior related to COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 437 participants were included. As compared with prepandemic data, 1 year after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns, HbA1c had decreased from 7.9%±1.1% (63±12 mmol/mol) to 7.5%±1.0% (59±11 mmol/mol) (p<0.001), whereas time in range increased from 55.8%±16.7% to 58.6%±16.7% (p=0.004) and time below (<3.9 mmol/L) and above (>13.9 mmol/L) range and glucose variability all decreased (all p<0.05). FGM use, higher HbA1c at baseline and current smoking were independently associated with an HbA1c decrease of at least 0.5%, whereas self-reported changes in psychological well-being and lifestyle behavior related to the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns were not. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic and related lockdown measures were associated with improvement in glucometrics, including HbA1c and FGM data, in individuals with type 1 diabetes, particularly in FGM users, those with higher HbA1c at baseline or current smokers.