Personality traits of alexithymia and perfectionism in impaired awareness of hypoglycemia in adults with type 1 diabetes – An exploratory study

Objective: Severe hypoglycemia complicates insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes, with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH) being a major risk factor. We explored associations between the personality traits, alexithymia and perfectionism, and cognitive barriers to hypoglycemia avoidance described in IAH, and evaluated their prevalence in people with and without IAH. Methods: Cross-sectional exploratory study. Ninety adults with type 1 diabetes, 54 hypoglycemia aware and 36 with IAH, completed validated questionnaires exploring alexithymia (Total Alexithymia Scale [TAS-20]) and perfectionism (Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale [FMPS]); and cognitive barriers related to hypoglycemia avoidance (Attitudes to Awareness Questionnaire [A2A]. Results: Alexithymia and perfectionism scores correlated positively with cognitive barriers associated with IAH. Specifically, alexthymia scores correlated with the ‘Hyperglycaemia Avoidance Prioritised’ factor (r = 0.265; p =.02, n = 77) and the ‘Asymptomatic Hypoglycemia Normalised’ factor (r = 0.252–0.255; p =.03, n = 77). Perfectionism scores correlated with the ‘Hyperglycaemia Avoidance Prioritised’ factor (r = 0.525; p <.001, n = 66). Overall, IAH participants were significantly more likely to score at the high end for alexithymia (17.6% vs. 1.9%, p =.008, n = 87) and at the extreme ends (high and low) for perfectionism (69.0% vs. 40.0%, χ2 (1) = 6.24, p =.01, n = 77). Conclusion: These novel data showing associations between alexithymia and perfectionism scores and maladaptive health beliefs in IAH suggest the intriguing possibility that personality traits may contribute to the risk of IAH, perhaps through their influence on incentives to avoid hypoglycemia. If confirmed, measuring such traits may help tailor early adjunctive psychological intervention to reduce hypoglycemia burden for people with IAH

Differentiating Hypoglycemia Awareness Status from Hypoglycemia Experience in Tools for Measuring Impaired Awareness of Hypoglycemia

Background: Developing technologies in real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) are successfully reducing severe hypoglycemia (SH) in trials and clinical practice. Their impact on impaired awareness of hypoglycemia, a major risk factor for SH, is uncertain. Methods: The present study examined two scales for assessing hypoglycemia awareness status, the Gold score and the eight-item Minimally Modified Clarke Hypoglycemia Survey (MMCHS), commonly used in trials of CGM, in Portuguese-speaking adults with type 1 diabetes and conducted an exploratory factor analysis on MMCHS. Results: A bifactorial structure in MMCHS was revealed, with a clear distinction between items that measure SH experience and those that measure hypoglycemia awareness status. The latter is associated with the same risk for SH as the Gold score. Conclusions: We conclude that improvement in awareness scores by the MMCHS may reflect only a reduction in SH with no restoration of endogenous awareness, making the current literature consistent in evidence that CGM does not improve endogenous awareness and nonsensor supported protection from SH. This has implications for risk of SH when CGM is not being worn

Hypoglycaemia symptom frequency, severity, burden, and utility among adults with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia: Baseline and 24-week findings from the HypoCOMPaSS study

Aims To determine the frequency, severity, burden, and utility of hypoglycaemia symptoms among adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IAH) at baseline and week 24 following the HypoCOMPaSS awareness restoration intervention. Methods Adults (N = 96) with T1D (duration: 29 ± 12 years; 64% women) and IAH completed the Hypoglycaemia Burden Questionnaire (HypoB-Q), assessing experience of 20 pre-specified hypoglycaemia symptoms, at baseline and week 24. Results At baseline, 93 (97%) participants experienced at least one symptom (mean ± SD 10.6 ± 4.6 symptoms). The proportion recognising each specific symptom ranged from 15% to 83%. At 24 weeks, symptom severity and burden appear reduced, and utility increased. Conclusions Adults with T1D and IAH experience a range of hypoglycaemia symptoms. Perceptions of symptom burden or utility are malleable. Although larger scale studies are needed to confirm, these findings suggest that changing the salience of the symptomatic response may be more important in recovering protection from hypoglycaemia through regained awareness than intensifying symptom frequency or severity.</p

Continuous glucose monitoring and metrics for clinical trials: an international consensus statement

Randomised controlled trials and other prospective clinical studies for novel medical interventions in people with diabetes have traditionally reported HbA1c as the measure of average blood glucose levels for the 3 months preceding the HbA1c test date. The use of this measure highlights the long-established correlation between HbA1c and relative risk of diabetes complications; the change in the measure, before and after the therapeutic intervention, is used by regulators for the approval of medications for diabetes. However, with the increasing use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in clinical practice, prospective clinical studies are also increasingly using CGM devices to collect data and evaluate glucose profiles among study participants, complementing HbA1c findings, and further assess the effects of therapeutic interventions on HbA1c. Data is collected by CGM devices at 1–5 min intervals, which obtains data on glycaemic excursions and periods of asymptomatic hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia (ie, details of glycaemic control that are not provided by HbA1c concentrations alone that are measured continuously and can be analysed in daily, weekly, or monthly timeframes). These CGM-derived metrics are the subject of standardised, internationally agreed reporting formats and should, therefore, be considered for use in all clinical studies in diabetes. The purpose of this consensus statement is to recommend the ways CGM data might be used in prospective clinical studies, either as a specified study endpoint or as supportive complementary glucose metrics, to provide clinical information that can be considered by investigators, regulators, companies, clinicians, and individuals with diabetes who are stakeholders in trial outcomes. In this consensus statement, we provide recommendations on how to optimise CGM-derived glucose data collection in clinical studies, including the specific glucose metrics and specific glucose metrics that should be evaluated. These recommendations have been endorsed by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Diabetes Association, the Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists, DiabetesIndia, the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, the Japanese Diabetes Society, and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. A standardised approach to CGM data collection and reporting in clinical trials will encourage the use of these metrics and enhance the interpretability of CGM data, which could provide useful information other than HbA1c for informing therapeutic and treatment decisions, particularly related to hypoglycaemia, postprandial hyperglycaemia, and glucose variability

Consensus Recommendations for the Use of Automated Insulin Delivery Technologies in Clinical Practice

The significant and growing global prevalence of diabetes continues to challenge people with diabetes (PwD), healthcare providers, and payers. While maintaining near-normal glucose levels has been shown to prevent or delay the progression of the long-term complications of diabetes, a significant proportion of PwD are not attaining their glycemic goals. During the past 6 years, we have seen tremendous advances in automated insulin delivery (AID) technologies. Numerous randomized controlled trials and real-world studies have shown that the use of AID systems is safe and effective in helping PwD achieve their long-term glycemic goals while reducing hypoglycemia risk. Thus, AID systems have recently become an integral part of diabetes management. However, recommendations for using AID systems in clinical settings have been lacking. Such guided recommendations are critical for AID success and acceptance. All clinicians working with PwD need to become familiar with the available systems in order to eliminate disparities in diabetes quality of care. This report provides much-needed guidance for clinicians who are interested in utilizing AIDs and presents a comprehensive listing of the evidence payers should consider when determining eligibility criteria for AID insurance coverage

Continuous glucose monitoring in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (CONCEPTT): a multicentre international randomised controlled trial

Background Pregnant women with type 1 diabetes are a high-risk population who are recommended to strive for optimal glucose control, but neonatal outcomes attributed to maternal hyperglycaemia remain suboptimal. Our aim was to examine the effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on maternal glucose control and obstetric and neonatal health outcomes. Methods In this multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial, we recruited women aged 18–40 years with type 1 diabetes for a minimum of 12 months who were receiving intensive insulin therapy. Participants were pregnant (≤13 weeks and 6 days' gestation) or planning pregnancy from 31 hospitals in Canada, England, Scotland, Spain, Italy, Ireland, and the USA. We ran two trials in parallel for pregnant participants and for participants planning pregnancy. In both trials, participants were randomly assigned to either CGM in addition to capillary glucose monitoring or capillary glucose monitoring alone. Randomisation was stratified by insulin delivery (pump or injections) and baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from randomisation to 34 weeks' gestation in pregnant women and to 24 weeks or conception in women planning pregnancy, and was assessed in all randomised participants with baseline assessments. Secondary outcomes included obstetric and neonatal health outcomes, assessed with all available data without imputation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01788527. Findings Between March 25, 2013, and March 22, 2016, we randomly assigned 325 women (215 pregnant, 110 planning pregnancy) to capillary glucose monitoring with CGM (108 pregnant and 53 planning pregnancy) or without (107 pregnant and 57 planning pregnancy). We found a small difference in HbA1c in pregnant women using CGM (mean difference −0·19%; 95% CI −0·34 to −0·03; p=0·0207). Pregnant CGM users spent more time in target (68% vs 61%; p=0·0034) and less time hyperglycaemic (27% vs 32%; p=0·0279) than did pregnant control participants, with comparable severe hypoglycaemia episodes (18 CGM and 21 control) and time spent hypoglycaemic (3% vs 4%; p=0·10). Neonatal health outcomes were significantly improved, with lower incidence of large for gestational age (odds ratio 0·51, 95% CI 0·28 to 0·90; p=0·0210), fewer neonatal intensive care admissions lasting more than 24 h (0·48; 0·26 to 0·86; p=0·0157), fewer incidences of neonatal hypoglycaemia (0·45; 0·22 to 0·89; p=0·0250), and 1-day shorter length of hospital stay (p=0·0091). We found no apparent benefit of CGM in women planning pregnancy. Adverse events occurred in 51 (48%) of CGM participants and 43 (40%) of control participants in the pregnancy trial, and in 12 (27%) of CGM participants and 21 (37%) of control participants in the planning pregnancy trial. Serious adverse events occurred in 13 (6%) participants in the pregnancy trial (eight [7%] CGM, five [5%] control) and in three (3%) participants in the planning pregnancy trial (two [4%] CGM and one [2%] control). The most common adverse events were skin reactions occurring in 49 (48%) of 103 CGM participants and eight (8%) of 104 control participants during pregnancy and in 23 (44%) of 52 CGM participants and five (9%) of 57 control participants in the planning pregnancy trial. The most common serious adverse events were gastrointestinal (nausea and vomiting in four participants during pregnancy and three participants planning pregnancy). Interpretation Use of CGM during pregnancy in patients with type 1 diabetes is associated with improved neonatal outcomes, which are likely to be attributed to reduced exposure to maternal hyperglycaemia. CGM should be offered to all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes using intensive insulin therapy. This study is the first to indicate potential for improvements in non-glycaemic health outcomes from CGM use