Blood immune cell profiling in adults with longstanding type 1 diabetes is associated with macrovascular complications.

Aims/hypothesis: There is increasing evidence for heterogeneity in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D): not only the age of onset and disease progression rate differ, but also the risk of complications varies markedly. Consequently, the presence of different disease endotypes has been suggested. Impaired T and B cell responses have been established in newly diagnosed diabetes patients. We hypothesized that deciphering the immune cell profile in peripheral blood of adults with longstanding T1D may help to understand disease heterogeneity. Methods: Adult patients with longstanding T1D and healthy controls (HC) were recruited, and their blood immune cell profile was determined using multicolour flow cytometry followed by a machine-learning based elastic-net (EN) classification model. Hierarchical clustering was performed to identify patient-specific immune cell profiles. Results were compared to those obtained in matched healthy control subjects. Results: Hierarchical clustering analysis of flow cytometry data revealed three immune cell composition-based distinct subgroups of individuals: HCs, T1D-group-A and T1D-group-B. In general, T1D patients, as compared to healthy controls, showed a more active immune profile as demonstrated by a higher percentage and absolute number of neutrophils, monocytes, total B cells and activated CD4+CD25+ T cells, while the abundance of regulatory T cells (Treg) was reduced. Patients belonging to T1D-group-A, as compared to T1D-group-B, revealed a more proinflammatory phenotype characterized by a lower percentage of FOXP3+ Treg, higher proportions of CCR4 expressing CD4 and CD8 T cell subsets, monocyte subsets, a lower Treg/conventional Tcell (Tconv) ratio, an increased proinflammatory cytokine (TNFα, IFNγ) and a decreased anti-inflammatory (IL-10) producing potential. Clinically, patients in T1D-group-A had more frequent diabetes-related macrovascular complications. Conclusions: Machine-learning based classification of multiparameter flow cytometry data revealed two distinct immunological profiles in adults with longstanding type 1 diabetes; T1D-group-A and T1D-group-B. T1D-group-A is characterized by a stronger pro-inflammatory profile and is associated with a higher rate of diabetes-related (macro)vascular complications.

Real-life hypoglycaemia partially blunts the inflammatory response to experimental hypoglycaemia in people with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: To determine whether recent repeated exposure to real-life hypoglycaemia affects the pro-inflammatory response during a hypoglycemia episode. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of a hyperinsulinaemic normoglycaemic-hypoglycaemic clamp study, involving 40 participants with type 1 diabetes. Glucose levels 1 week before the clamp were monitored using a Freestyle Libre 1. Blood was drawn during normoglycaemia and hypoglycaemia, and 24 hours after resolution of hypoglycaemia for measurements of inflammatory responses and counterregulatory hormone levels. We determined the relationship between the frequency and duration of spontaneous hypoglycaemia, and time below range (TBR) and the inflammatory response to experimental hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: On average, participants experienced 0.79 (0.43, 1.14) hypoglycaemia episodes per day, with a duration of 78 (47, 110) minutes and TBR of 5.5% (2.8%, 8.5%). TBR and hypoglycaemia frequency were inversely associated with the increase in circulating granulocyte and lymphocyte counts during experimental hypoglycaemia (P < .05 for all). A protein network consisting of DNER, IF-R, uPA, Flt3L, FGF-5 and TWEAK was negatively associated with hypoglycaemia frequency (P < .05), but not with the adrenaline response. Neither other counterregulatory hormones, nor hypoglycaemia awareness status, was associated with any of the inflammatory parameters markers. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated exposure to spontaneous hypoglycaemia is associated with blunted effects of subsequent experimental hypoglycaemia on circulating immune cells and the number of inflammatory proteins.

Association between recent exposure to continuous glucose monitoring-recorded hypoglycaemia and counterregulatory and symptom responses to subsequent controlled hypoglycaemia in people with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: Experimental hypoglycaemia blunts the counterregulatory hormone and symptom responses to a subsequent episode of hypoglycaemia. In this study, we aimed to assess the associations between antecedent exposure and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-recorded hypoglycaemia during a 1-week period and the counterregulatory responses to subsequent experimental hypoglycaemia in people with type 1 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two people with type 1 diabetes (20 females, mean ± SD glycated haemoglobin 7.8% ± 1.0%, diabetes duration median (interquartile range) 22.0 (10.5-34.9) years, 29 CGM users, and 19 with impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia) wore an open intermittently scanned CGM for 1 week to detect hypoglycaemic exposure before a standardized hyperinsulinaemic-hypoglycaemic [2.8 ± 0.1 mmol/L (50.2 ± 2.3 mg/dl)] glucose clamp. Symptom responses and counterregulatory hormones were measured during the clamp. The study is part of the HypoRESOLVE project. RESULTS: CGM-recorded hypoglycaemia in the week before the clamp was negatively associated with adrenaline response [ß -0.09, 95% CI (-0.16, -0.02) nmol/L, p = .014], after adjusting for CGM use, awareness of hypoglycaemia, glycated haemoglobin and total daily insulin dose. This was driven by level 2 hypoglycaemia [<3.0 mmol/L (54 mg/dl)] [ß -0.21, 95% CI (-0.41, -0.01) nmol/L, p = .034]. CGM-recorded hypoglycaemia was negatively associated with total, autonomic, and neuroglycopenic symptom responses, but these associations were lost after adjusting for potential confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Recent exposure to CGM-detected hypoglycaemia was independently associated with an attenuated adrenaline response to experimental hypoglycaemia in people with type 1 diabetes.

The impact of prior exposure to hypoglycaemia on the inflammatory response to a subsequent hypoglycaemic episode.

BACKGROUND: Hypoglycaemia has been shown to induce a systemic pro-inflammatory response, which may be driven, in part, by the adrenaline response. Prior exposure to hypoglycaemia attenuates counterregulatory hormone responses to subsequent hypoglycaemia, but whether this effect can be extrapolated to the pro-inflammatory response is unclear. Therefore, we investigated the effect of antecedent hypoglycaemia on inflammatory responses to subsequent hypoglycaemia in humans. METHODS: Healthy participants (n = 32) were recruited and randomised to two 2-h episodes of either hypoglycaemia or normoglycaemia on day 1, followed by a hyperinsulinaemic hypoglycaemic (2.8 ± 0.1 mmol/L) glucose clamp on day 2. During normoglycaemia and hypoglycaemia, and after 24 h, 72 h and 1 week, blood was drawn to determine circulating immune cell composition, phenotype and function, and 93 circulating inflammatory proteins including hs-CRP. RESULTS: In the group undergoing antecedent hypoglycaemia, the adrenaline response to next-day hypoglycaemia was lower compared to the control group (1.45 ± 1.24 vs 2.68 ± 1.41 nmol/l). In both groups, day 2 hypoglycaemia increased absolute numbers of circulating immune cells, of which lymphocytes and monocytes remained elevated for the whole week. Also, the proportion of pro-inflammatory CD16+-monocytes increased during hypoglycaemia. After ex vivo stimulation, monocytes released more TNF-α and IL-1ß, and less IL-10 in response to hypoglycaemia, whereas levels of 19 circulating inflammatory proteins, including hs-CRP, increased for up to 1 week after the hypoglycaemic event. Most of the inflammatory responses were similar in the two groups, except the persistent pro-inflammatory protein changes were partly blunted in the group exposed to antecedent hypoglycaemia. We did not find a correlation between the adrenaline response and the inflammatory responses during hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSION: Hypoglycaemia induces an acute and persistent pro-inflammatory response at multiple levels that occurs largely, but not completely, independent of prior exposure to hypoglycaemia. Clinical Trial information Clinicaltrials.gov no. NCT03976271 (registered 5 June 2019).

Counterregulatory hormone and symptom responses to hypoglycaemia in people with type 1 diabetes, insulin-treated type 2 diabetes or without diabetes: the Hypo-RESOLVE hypoglycaemic clamp study.

AIM: The sympathetic nervous and hormonal counterregulatory responses to hypoglycaemia differ between people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes and may change along the course of diabetes, but have not been directly compared. We aimed to compare counterregulatory hormone and symptom responses to hypoglycaemia between people with type 1 diabetes, insulin-treated type 2 diabetes and controls without diabetes, using a standardised hyperinsulinaemic-hypoglycaemic clamp. MATERIALS: We included 47 people with type 1 diabetes, 15 with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, and 32 controls without diabetes. Controls were matched according to age and sex to the people with type 1 diabetes or with type 2 diabetes. All participants underwent a hyperinsulinaemic-euglycaemic-(5.2 ± 0.4 mmol/L)-hypoglycaemic-(2.8 ± 0.13 mmol/L)-clamp. RESULTS: The glucagon response was lower in people with type 1 diabetes (9.4 ± 0.8 pmol/L, 8.0 [7.0-10.0]) compared to type 2 diabetes (23.7 ± 3.7 pmol/L, 18.0 [12.0-28.0], p < 0.001) and controls (30.6 ± 4.7, 25.5 [17.8-35.8] pmol/L, p < 0.001). The adrenaline response was lower in type 1 diabetes (1.7 ± 0.2, 1.6 [1.3-5.2] nmol/L) compared to type 2 diabetes (3.4 ± 0.7, 2.6 [1.3-5.2] nmol/L, p = 0.001) and controls (2.7 ± 0.4, 2.8 [1.4-3.9] nmol/L, p = 0.012). Growth hormone was lower in people with type 2 diabetes than in type 1 diabetes, at baseline (3.4 ± 1.6 vs 7.7 ± 1.3 mU/L, p = 0.042) and during hypoglycaemia (24.7 ± 7.1 vs 62.4 ± 5.8 mU/L, p = 0.001). People with 1 diabetes had lower overall symptom responses than people with type 2 diabetes (45.3 ± 2.7 vs 58.7 ± 6.4, p = 0.018), driven by a lower neuroglycopenic score (27.4 ± 1.8 vs 36.7 ± 4.2, p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Acute counterregulatory hormone and symptom responses to experimental hypoglycaemia are lower in people with type 1 diabetes than in those with long-standing insulin-treated type 2 diabetes and controls.

Magnesium supplementation modulates T-cell function in people with type 2 diabetes and low serum magnesium levels.

CONTEXT: Low magnesium levels, which are common in people with type 2 diabetes, are associated with increased levels of pro-inflammatory molecules. It is unknown whether magnesium supplementation decreases this low-grade inflammation in people with type 2 diabetes. OBJECTIVE: We performed a multidimensional immunophenotyping to better understand the effect of magnesium supplementation on the immune system of people with type 2 diabetes and low magnesium levels. METHODS: Using a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-period, cross-over study, we compared the effect of magnesium supplementation (15 mmol/day) to placebo on the immunophenotype including whole blood immune cell counts, T-cell and CD14+ monocyte function after ex vivo stimulation, and the circulating inflammatory proteome. RESULTS: We included 12 adults with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (7 males, mean±SD age 67±7 years, BMI 31±5 kg/m2, HbA1c 7.5±0.9 %) and low magnesium levels (0.73±0.05 mmol/l). Magnesium treatment significantly increased serum magnesium and the urinary magnesium excretion, when compared to placebo. The IFN-γ production from PMA/ionomycin stimulated CD8+ T-cells and T-helper 1 cells, as well as the IL4/IL5/IL13 production from T-helper 2 cells was lower after treatment with magnesium compared to placebo. Magnesium supplementation did not affect immune cell numbers, ex vivo monocyte function and circulating inflammatory proteins, although we found a tendency for lower high sensitive CRP levels after magnesium supplementation compared to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, magnesium supplementation modulates the function of CD4+ and CD8+ T-cells in people with type 2 diabetes and low serum magnesium levels.

Oral magnesium supplementation does not affect insulin sensitivity in people with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes and a low serum magnesium: a randomised controlled trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Hypomagnesaemia has been associated with insulin resistance and an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. Whether magnesium supplementation improves insulin sensitivity in people with type 2 diabetes and a low serum magnesium level is unknown. METHODS: Using a randomised, double-blind (both participants and investigators were blinded to the participants' treatment sequences), placebo-controlled, crossover study design, we compared the effect of oral magnesium supplementation (15 mmol/day) for 6 weeks with that of matched placebo in individuals with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (age ≥18 years, BMI 18-40 kg/m2, HbA1c <100 mmol/mol [11.3%], serum magnesium ≤0.79 mmol/l). Participants were recruited from the outpatient clinic and through advertisements. Randomisation to a treatment sequence order was done using a randomisation list. We used block randomisation and the two possible treatment sequences were evenly distributed among the trial population. The primary outcome was the mean glucose infusion rate during the final 30 min of a hyperinsulinaemic-euglycaemic clamp (i.e. M value). Secondary outcomes included variables of glucose control, insulin need, BP, lipid profile and hypomagnesaemia-related symptoms during follow-up. RESULTS: We recruited 14 participants (50% women, 100% White, mean ± SD age 67±6 years, BMI 31±5 kg/m2, HbA1c 58±9 mmol/mol [7.4±0.9%]) with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. Magnesium supplementation increased both mean ± SEM serum magnesium level (0.75±0.02 vs 0.70±0.02 mmol/l, p=0.016) and urinary magnesium excretion (magnesium/creatinine ratio, 0.23±0.02 vs 0.15±0.02, p=0.005), as compared with placebo. The M value of the glucose clamp did not differ between the magnesium and placebo study arms (4.6±0.5 vs 4.4±0.6 mg kg-1 min-1, p=0.108). During the 6 weeks of treatment, continuous glucose monitoring outcomes, HbA1c, insulin dose, lipid profile and BP also did not differ, except for a lower HDL-cholesterol concentration after magnesium compared with placebo (1.14±0.08 vs 1.20±0.09 mmol/l, p=0.026). Symptoms potentially related to hypomagnesaemia were similar for both treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Despite an albeit modest increase in serum magnesium concentration, oral magnesium supplementation does not improve insulin sensitivity in people with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes and low magnesium levels. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number 2021-001243-27. FUNDING: This study was supported by a grant from the Dutch Diabetes Research Foundation (2017-81-014).