A parallel randomised controlled trial of the Hypoglycaemia Awareness Restoration Programme for adults with type 1 diabetes and problematic hypoglycaemia despite optimised self-care (HARPdoc).

Impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IAH) is a major risk for severe hypoglycaemia in insulin treatment of type 1 diabetes (T1D). To explore the hypothesis that unhelpful health beliefs create barriers to regaining awareness, we conducted a multi-centre, randomised, parallel, two-arm trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02940873) in adults with T1D and treatment-resistant IAH and severe hypoglycaemia, with blinded analysis of 12-month recall of severe hypoglycaemia at 12 and/or 24 months the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included cognitive and emotional measures. Adults with T1D, IAH and severe hypoglycaemia despite structured education in insulin adjustment, +/- diabetes technologies, were randomised to the "Hypoglycaemia Awareness Restoration Programme despite optimised self-care" (HARPdoc, n = 49), a psychoeducation programme uniquely focussing on changing cognitive barriers to avoiding hypoglycaemia, or the evidence-based "Blood Glucose Awareness Training" (BGAT, n = 50), both delivered over six weeks. Median [IQR] severe hypoglycaemia at baseline was 5[2-12] per patient/year, 1[0-5] at 12 months and 0[0-2] at 24 months, with no superiority for HARPdoc (HARPdoc vs BGAT incident rate ratios [95% CI] 1.25[0.51, 3.09], p = 0.62 and 1.26[0.48, 3.35], p = 0.64 respectively), nor for changes in hypoglycaemia awareness scores or fear. Compared to BGAT, HARPdoc significantly reduced endorsement of unhelpful cognitions (Estimated Mean Difference for Attitudes to Awareness scores at 24 months, -2.07 [-3.37,-0.560], p = 0.01) and reduced scores for diabetes distress (-6.70[-12.50,-0.89], p = 0.02); depression (-1.86[-3.30, -0.43], p = 0.01) and anxiety (-1.89[-3.32, -0.47], p = 0.01). Despite positive impact on cognitive barriers around hypoglycaemia avoidance and on diabetes-related and general emotional distress scores, HARPdoc was not more effective than BGAT at reducing severe hypoglycaemia.

Characteristics of adults with type 1 diabetes and treatment-resistant problematic hypoglycaemia: a baseline analysis from the HARPdoc RCT.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Problematic hypoglycaemia still complicates insulin therapy for some with type 1 diabetes. This study describes baseline emotional, cognitive and behavioural characteristics in participants in the HARPdoc trial, which evaluates a novel intervention for treatment-resistant problematic hypoglycaemia. METHODS: We documented a cross-sectional baseline description of 99 adults with type 1 diabetes and problematic hypoglycaemia despite structured education in flexible insulin therapy. The following measures were included: Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey II (HFS-II); Attitudes to Awareness of Hypoglycaemia questionnaire (A2A); Hospital Anxiety and Depression Index; and Problem Areas In Diabetes. k-mean cluster analysis was applied to HFS-II and A2A factors. Data were compared with a peer group without problematic hypoglycaemia, propensity-matched for age, sex and diabetes duration (n = 81). RESULTS: The HARPdoc cohort had long-duration diabetes (mean ± SD 35.8 ± 15.4 years), mean ± SD Gold score 5.3 ± 1.2 and a median (IQR) of 5.0 (2.0-12.0) severe hypoglycaemia episodes in the previous year. Most individuals had been offered technology and 49.5% screened positive for anxiety (35.0% for depression and 31.3% for high diabetes distress). The cohort segregated into two clusters: in one (n = 68), people endorsed A2A cognitive barriers to hypoglycaemia avoidance, with low fear on HFS-II factors; in the other (n = 29), A2A factor scores were low and HFS-II high. Anxiety and depression scores were significantly lower in the comparator group. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: The HARPdoc protocol successfully recruited people with treatment-resistant problematic hypoglycaemia. The participants had high anxiety and depression. Most of the cohort endorsed unhelpful health beliefs around hypoglycaemia, with low fear of hypoglycaemia, a combination that may contribute to persistence of problematic hypoglycaemia and may be a target for adjunctive psychological therapies.

Hypoglycemia Subtypes in Type 1 Diabetes: An Exploration of the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey-II.

OBJECTIVE: The Hypoglycemia Fear Survey-II (HFS-II) is a well-validated measure of fear of hypoglycemia in people with type 1 diabetes. The aim of this study was to explore the relationships between hypoglycemia worries, behaviors, and cognitive barriers to hypoglycemia avoidance and hypoglycemia awareness status, severe hypoglycemia, and HbA1c. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants with type 1 diabetes (n = 178), with the study population enriched for people at risk for severe hypoglycemia (49%), completed questionnaires for assessing hypoglycemia fear (HFS-II), hyperglycemia avoidance (Hyperglycemia Avoidance Scale [HAS]), diabetes distress (Problem Areas In Diabetes [PAID]), and cognitive barriers to hypoglycemia avoidance (Attitudes to Awareness of Hypoglycemia [A2A]). Exploratory factor analysis was applied to the HFS-II. We sought to establish clusters based on HFS-II, A2A, Gold, HAS, and PAID using k-means clustering. RESULTS: Four HFS-II factors were identified: Sought Safety, Restricted Activity, Ran High, and Worry. While Sought Safety, Restricted Activity, and Worry increased with progressively impaired awareness and recurrent severe hypoglycemia, Ran High did not. With cluster analysis we outlined four clusters: two clusters with preserved hypoglycemia awareness were differentiated by low fear/low cognitive barriers to hypoglycemia avoidance (cluster 1) versus high fear and distress and increased Ran High behaviors (cluster 2). Two clusters with impaired hypoglycemia awareness were differentiated by low fear/high cognitive barriers (cluster 3) as well as high fear/low cognitive barriers (cluster 4). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to define clusters of hypoglycemia experience by worry, behaviors, and cognitive barriers to hypoglycemia avoidance. The resulting subtypes may be important in understanding and treating problematic hypoglycemia.

Hypoglycaemia Awareness Restoration Programme for People with Type 1 Diabetes and Problematic Hypoglycaemia Persisting Despite Optimised Self-care (HARPdoc): protocol for a group randomised controlled trial of a novel intervention addressing cognitions.

INTRODUCTION: Severe hypoglycaemia (SH), when blood glucose falls too low to support brain function, is the most feared acute complication of insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). 10% of people with T1DM contribute nearly 70% of all episodes, with impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IAH) a major risk factor. People with IAH may be refractory to conventional approaches to reduce SH, with evidence for cognitive barriers to hypoglycaemia avoidance. This paper describes the protocol for the Hypoglycaemia Awareness Restoration Programme for People with Type 1 Diabetes and Problematic Hypoglycaemia Persisting Despite Optimised Self-care (HARPdoc) study, a trial to assess the impact on hypoglycaemia experience of a novel intervention that addresses cognitive barriers to hypoglycaemia avoidance, compared with an existing control intervention, recommended by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A randomised parallel two-arm trial of two group therapies: HARPdoc versus Blood Glucose Awareness Training, among 96 adults with T1DM and problematic hypoglycaemia, despite attendance at education with or without technology use, in four centres providing specialist T1DM services. The primary outcome will be the SH rate at 12 and/or 24 months after randomisation to either course. Secondary outcomes include rates of SH requiring parenteral therapy, involving unconsciousness or needing emergency services; hypoglycaemia awareness status, overall diabetes control and quality of life measures. An implementation study to evaluate how the interventions are delivered and how implementation impacts on clinical effectiveness is planned as a parallel study, with its own protocol. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was approved by the London Dulwich Research Ethics Committee, the Health Research Authority, National Health Service R&D and the Institutional Review Board of the Joslin Diabetes Center in the USA. Study findings will be disseminated to study participants and through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, including user groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCY02940873; Pre-results.

Chapter 1. Impacts of the oceans on climate change.

The oceans play a key role in climate regulation especially in part buffering (neutralising) the effects of increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and rising global temperatures. This chapter examines how the regulatory processes performed by the oceans alter as a response to climate change and assesses the extent to which positive feedbacks from the ocean may exacerbate climate change. There is clear evidence for rapid change in the oceans. As the main heat store for the world there has been an accelerating change in sea temperatures over the last few decades, which has contributed to rising sea-level. The oceans are also the main store of carbon dioxide (CO2), and are estimated to have taken up approximately 40% of anthropogenic-sourced CO2 from the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution. A proportion of the carbon uptake is exported via the four ocean 'carbon pumps' (Solubility, Biological, Continental Shelf and Carbonate Counter) to the deep ocean reservoir. Increases in sea temperature and changing planktonic systems and ocean currents may lead to a reduction in the uptake of CO2 by the ocean; some evidence suggests a suppression of parts of the marine carbon sink is already underway. While the oceans have buffered climate change through the uptake of CO2 produced by fossil fuel burning this has already had an impact on ocean chemistry through ocean acidification and will continue to do so. Feedbacks to climate change from acidification may result from expected impacts on marine organisms (especially corals and calcareous plankton), ecosystems and biogeochemical cycles. The polar regions of the world are showing the most rapid responses to climate change. As a result of a strong ice-ocean influence, small changes in temperature, salinity and ice cover may trigger large and sudden changes in regional climate with potential downstream feedbacks to the climate of the rest of the world. A warming Arctic Ocean may lead to further releases of the potent greenhouse gas methane from hydrates and permafrost. The Southern Ocean plays a critical role in driving, modifying and regulating global climate change via the carbon cycle and through its impact on adjacent Antarctica. The Antarctic Peninsula has shown some of the most rapid rises in atmospheric and oceanic temperature in the world, with an associated retreat of the majority of glaciers. Parts of the West Antarctic ice sheet are deflating rapidly, very likely due to a change in the flux of oceanic heat to the undersides of the floating ice shelves. The final section on modelling feedbacks from the ocean to climate change identifies limitations and priorities for model development and associated observations. Considering the importance of the oceans to climate change and our limited understanding of climate-related ocean processes, our ability to measure the changes that are taking place are conspicuously inadequate. The chapter highlights the need for a comprehensive, adequately funded and globally extensive ocean observing system to be implemented and sustained as a high priority. Unless feedbacks from the oceans to climate change are adequately included in climate change models, it is possible that the mitigation actions needed to stabilise CO2 and limit temperature rise over the next century will be underestimated.