Hyperinsulinaemic–hypoglycaemic glucose clamps in human research: a systematic review of the literature

Abstract: Aims/hypothesis: The hyperinsulinaemic–hypoglycaemic glucose clamp technique has been developed and applied to assess effects of and responses to hypoglycaemia under standardised conditions. However, the degree to which the methodology of clamp studies is standardised is unclear. This systematic review examines how hyperinsulinaemic–hypoglycaemic clamps have been performed and elucidates potential important differences. Methods: A literature search in PubMed and EMBASE was conducted. Articles in English published between 1980 and 2018, involving adults with or without diabetes, were included. Results: A total of 383 articles were included. There was considerable variation in essential methodology of the hypoglycaemic clamp procedures, including the insulin dose used (49-fold difference between the lowest and the highest rate), the number of hypoglycaemic steps (range 1−6), the hypoglycaemic nadirs (range 2.0–4.3 mmol/l) and the duration (ranging from 5 to 660 min). Twenty-seven per cent of the articles reported whole blood glucose levels, most venous levels. In 70.8% of the studies, a dorsal hand vein was used for blood sampling, with some form of hand warming to arterialise venous blood in 78.8% of these. Key information was missing in 61.9% of the articles. Conclusions/interpretation: Although the hyperinsulinaemic–hypoglycaemic clamp procedure is considered the gold standard to study experimental hypoglycaemia, a uniform standard with key elements on how to perform these experiments is lacking. Methodological differences should be considered when comparing results between hypoglycaemic clamp studies. PROSPERO registration: This systematic review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019120083). Graphical abstract

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.

Acknowledgements: The authors thank Stine Tving Kjøller, Charlotte Hansen, Pernille Banck-Petersen and Rikke Carstensen for assisting as research nurses and Charlotte Pietraszek and Susanne Månsson for preparation of blood and other practicalities during the clamp in Denmark. We also thank Evertine Abbink, Linda Drenthen, Karin Saini, Marjolein Eybergen, Emma Lensen and Esther Eggenhuizen for assistance during the clamps in the Netherlands.Funder: National Health Service in the East of England through the Clinical Academic ReserveFunder: Copenhagen UniversityAIM: 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.This study has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (JU) under grant agreement No 777460. The JU receives support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and EFPIA and T1D Exchange, JDRF, International Diabetes Federation (IDF), The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. The University of Cambridge has received salary support for MLE through the National Health Service in the East of England through the Clinical Academic Reserve

Glycaemic thresholds for counterregulatory hormone and symptom responses to hypoglycaemia in people with and without type 1 diabetes: a systematic review.

AIM/HYPOTHESIS: The physiological counterregulatory response to hypoglycaemia is reported to be organised hierarchically, with hormone responses usually preceding symptomatic awareness and autonomic responses preceding neuroglycopenic responses. To compare thresholds for activation of these responses more accurately between people with or without type 1 diabetes, we performed a systematic review on stepped hyperinsulinaemic-hypoglycaemic glucose clamps. METHODS: A literature search in PubMed and EMBASE was conducted. We included articles published between 1980 and 2018 involving hyperinsulinaemic stepped hypoglycaemic glucose clamps among people with or without type 1 diabetes. Key exclusion criteria were as follows: data were previously published; other patient population; a clamp not the primary intervention; and an inadequate clamp description. Glycaemic thresholds for counterregulatory hormone and/or symptom responses to hypoglycaemia were estimated and compared using generalised logrank test for interval-censored data, where the intervals were either extracted directly or calculated from the data provided by the study. A glycaemic threshold was defined as the glucose level at which the response exceeded the 95% CI of the mean baseline measurement or euglycaemic control clamp. Because of the use of interval-censored data, we described thresholds using median and IQR. RESULTS: A total of 63 articles were included, whereof 37 papers included participants with type 1 diabetes (n=559; 67.4% male sex, aged 32.7±10.2 years, BMI 23.8±1.4 kg/m2) and 51 papers included participants without diabetes (n=733; 72.4% male sex, aged 31.1±9.2 years, BMI 23.6±1.1 kg/m2). Compared with non-diabetic control individuals, in people with type 1 diabetes, the median (IQR) glycaemic thresholds for adrenaline (3.8 [3.2-4.2] vs 3.4 [2.8-3.9 mmol/l]), noradrenaline (3.2 [3.2-3.7] vs 3.0 [2.8-3.1] mmol/l), cortisol (3.5 [3.2-4.2]) vs 2.8 [2.8-3.4] mmol/l) and growth hormone (3.8 [3.3-3.8] vs. 3.2 [3.0-3.3] mmol/l) all occurred at lower glucose levels in people with diabetes than in those without diabetes (all p≤0.01). Similarly, although both autonomic (median [IQR] 3.4 [3.4-3.4] vs 3.0 [2.8-3.4] mmol/l) and neuroglycopenic (median [IQR] 3.4 [2.8-N/A] vs 3.0 [3.0-3.1] mmol/l) symptom responses were elicited at lower glucose levels in people with type 1 diabetes, the thresholds for autonomic and neuroglycopenic symptoms did not differ for each individual subgroup. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: People with type 1 diabetes have glycaemic thresholds for counterregulatory hormone and symptom responses at lower glucose levels than people without diabetes. Autonomic and neuroglycopenic symptoms responses are generated at about similar levels of hypoglycaemia. There was a considerable variation in the methodology of the articles and the high insulin doses in most of the clamps may affect the counterregulatory responses. FUNDING: This article has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (JU) under grant agreement no. 777460. REGISTRATION: This systematic review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019120083)

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

Publication status: PublishedFunder: International Diabetes Federation; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100019619Funder: Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint UndertakingFunder: the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF)Funder: Horizon 2020 Framework Programme; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100010661Funder: HCT; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100012812Funder: European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100013322AbstractAimExperimental 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 MethodsForty‐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.ResultsCGM‐recorded hypoglycaemia in the week before the clamp was negatively associated with adrenaline response [β −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 [&lt;3.0 mmol/L (54 mg/dl)] [β −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.ConclusionsRecent exposure to CGM‐detected hypoglycaemia was independently associated with an attenuated adrenaline response to experimental hypoglycaemia in people with type 1 diabetes.</jats:sec

Consistent Effects of Hypoglycemia on Cognitive Function in People With or Without Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Hypoglycemia poses an immediate threat for cognitive function. Due to its association with acute cognitive impairment, the International Hypoglycemia Study Group (IHSG) defines a blood glucose level <3.0 mmol/L as "level 2 hypoglycemia." In the current study we investigated whether having diabetes, type of diabetes, or hypoglycemia awareness moderates this association. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Adults with type 1 diabetes with normal (n = 26) or impaired (n = 21) hypoglycemic awareness or with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (n = 15) and age-matched control subjects without diabetes (n = 32) underwent a hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic-hypoglycemic glucose clamp (2.80 ± 0.13 mmol/L [50.2 ± 2.3 mg/dL]). At baseline and during hypoglycemia, calculation ability, attention, working memory and cognitive flexibility were measured with the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT) and the Test of Attentional Performance (TAP). RESULTS: For the whole group, hypoglycemia decreased the mean ± SD proportion of correct answers on the PASAT by 8.4 ± 12.8%, increased reaction time on the TAP Alertness task by 32.1 ± 66.6 ms, and increased the sum of errors and omissions on the TAP Working Memory task by 2.0 ± 5.5 (all P < 0.001). Hypoglycemia-induced cognitive declines were largely irrespective of the presence or type of diabetes, level of symptomatic awareness, diabetes duration, or HbA1c. CONCLUSIONS: IHSG level 2 hypoglycemia impairs cognitive function in people with and without diabetes, irrespective of type of diabetes or hypoglycemia awareness status. These findings support the cutoff value of hypoglycemia <3.0 mmol/L (<54 mg/dL) as being clinically relevant for most people with diabetes.Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (JU) under grant agreement No 777460. The JU receives support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and EFPIA and T1D Exchange, JDRF, International Diabetes Federation (IDF), The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust