Development and validation of a prediction model for iron status in a large U.S. cohort of women

Abstract Serum iron levels can be important contributors to health outcomes, but it is not often feasible to rely on blood-based measures for a large epidemiologic study. Predictive models that use questionnaire-based factors such as diet, supplement use, recency of blood donation, and medical conditions could potentially provide a noninvasive alternative for studying health effects associated with iron status. We hypothesized that a model based on questionnaire data could predict blood-based measures of iron status biomarkers. Using iron (mcg/dL), ferritin (mcg/dL), and transferrin saturation (%) based on blood collected at study entry, in a subsample from the U.S.-wide Sister Study (n = 3171), we developed and validated a prediction model for iron with multivariable linear regression models. Model performance based on these cross-sectional data was weak, with R2 less than 0.10 for serum iron and transferrin saturation, but better for ferritin, with an R2 of 0.13 in premenopausal women and 0.19 in postmenopausal women. When menopause was included in the predictive model for the sample, the R2 was 0.31 for ferritin. Internal validation of the estimates indicated some optimism present in the observed prediction model, implying there would be worse performance when applied to new samples from the same population. Serum iron status is hard to assess based only on questionnaire data. Reducing measurement error in both the exposure and outcome may improve the prediction model performance, but environmental heterogeneity, temporal variation, and genetic heterogeneity in absorption and storage may contribute substantially to iron status

Predictors of Time-in-Range (70–180 mg/dL) Achieved Using a Closed-Loop Control System

International audienceBackground: Studies of closed-loop control (CLC) in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) consistently demonstrate improvements in glycemic control as measured by increased time-in-range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL. However, clinical predictors of TIR in users of CLC systems are needed. Materials and Methods: We analyzed data from 100 children aged 6-13 years with T1D using the Tandem Control-IQ CLC system during a randomized trial or subsequent extension phase. Continuous glucose monitor data were collected at baseline and during 12-16 weeks of CLC use. Participants were stratified into quartiles of TIR on CLC to compare clinical characteristics. Results: TIR for those in the first, second, third, and fourth quartiles was 54%, 65%, 71%, and 78%, respectively. Lower baseline TIR was associated with lower TIR on CLC (r = 0.69, P < 0.001). However, lower baseline TIR was also associated with greater improvement in TIR on CLC (r = -0.81, P < 0.001). During CLC, participants in the highest versus lowest TIR-quartile administered more user-initiated boluses daily (8.5 ± 2.8 vs. 5.8 ± 2.6, P < 0.001) and received fewer automated boluses (3.5 ± 1.0 vs. 6.0 ± 1.6, P < 0.001). Participants in the lowest (vs. the highest) TIR-quartile received more insulin per body weight (1.13 ± 0.27 vs. 0.87 ± 0.20 U/kg/d, P = 0.008). However, in a multivariate model adjusting for baseline TIR, user-initiated boluses and insulin-per-body-weight were no longer significant. Conclusions: Higher baseline TIR is the strongest predictor of TIR on CLC in children with T1D. However, lower baseline TIR is associated with the greatest improvement in TIR. As with open-loop systems, user engagement is important for optimal glycemic control

Patient-Reported Outcomes in a Randomized Trial of Closed-Loop Control: The Pivotal International Diabetes Closed-Loop Trial

International audienceBackground: Closed-loop control (CLC) has been shown to improve glucose time in range and other glucose metrics; however, randomized trials >3 months comparing CLC with sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy are limited. We recently reported glucose control outcomes from the 6-month international Diabetes Closed-Loop (iDCL) trial; we now report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in this iDCL trial. Methods: Participants were randomized 2:1 to CLC (N = 112) versus SAP (N = 56) and completed questionnaires, including Hypoglycemia Fear Survey, Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), Hypoglycemia Awareness, Hypoglycemia Confidence, Hyperglycemia Avoidance, and Positive Expectancies of CLC (INSPIRE) at baseline, 3, and 6 months. CLC participants also completed Diabetes Technology Expectations and Acceptance and System Usability Scale (SUS). Results: The Hypoglycemia Fear Survey Behavior subscale improved significantly after 6 months of CLC compared with SAP. DDS did not differ except for powerless subscale scores, which worsened at 3 months in SAP. Whereas Hypoglycemia Awareness and Hyperglycemia Avoidance did not differ between groups, CLC participants showed a tendency toward improved confidence in managing hypoglycemia. The INSPIRE questionnaire showed favorable scores in the CLC group for teens and parents, with a similar trend for adults. At baseline and 6 months, CLC participants had high positive expectations for the device with Diabetes Technology Acceptance and SUS showing high benefit and low burden scores. Conclusion: CLC improved some PROs compared with SAP. Participants reported high benefit and low burden with CLC. Clinical Trial Identifier: NCT03563313