"Hyperglycemia aversiveness": Investigating an overlooked problem among adults with type 1 diabetes

Psychometric validation of the hyperglycaemia avoidance scale UK (HAS-UK)

AIMS

Hyperglycaemia aversion in type 1 diabetes can be associated with severe hypoglycaemia and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia but is not routinely assessed clinically. This study aimed to undertake the first psychometric validation of the UK version of the Hyperglycaemia Avoidance Scale (HAS-UK).

METHODS

The HAS-UK was completed by adults with type 1 diabetes in three separate research studies. Psychometric properties were evaluated, using exploratory factor analysis, internal consistency, and convergent validity.

RESULTS

Of the 431 participants who completed the HAS-UK in the three studies, mean age was 49.5 years, and 58.0% were women. Mean duration of diabetes was 29 years, with 192 (44.5%) using multiple daily injections and 229 (53.1%) using an insulin pump. Five participants were excluded from analyses due to incomplete HAS-UK responses. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a 3-factor solution, with acceptable internal consistency for 'worry' and 'blood glucose decisions' factors. HAS-UK total score was higher in those using insulin pumps versus multiple daily injections, and 'blood glucose decisions' score was higher in those using a continuous blood glucose sensor versus a meter.

CONCLUSIONS

The HAS-UK is a reliable measure with acceptable structural validity and is likely to be useful for evaluating hyperglycaemia aversion in people with type 1 diabetes. Future research would benefit from investigating further psychometric properties including test-retest reliability, sensitivity to change, and clinical significance of scores.

Relationships of hypoglycemia awareness, hypoglycemia beliefs, and continuous glucose monitoring glycemic profiles with anxiety and depression symptoms in adults with type 1 diabetes using continuous glucose monitoring systems

AIMS

To evaluate relationships of hypoglycemia awareness, hypoglycemia beliefs, and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) glycemic profiles with anxiety and depression symptoms in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) who use CGM.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey and data collections were completed with 196 T1D adults who used CGM (59% also used automated insulin delivery devices (AIDs)). We assessed hypoglycemia awareness (Gold instrument), hypoglycemia beliefs (Attitudes to Awareness of Hypoglycemia instrument), CGM glycemic profiles, demographics, and anxiety and depression symptoms (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale). Analysis included simple and multiple linear regression analyses.

RESULTS

Lower hypoglycemia awareness, weaker "hypoglycemia concerns minimized" beliefs, stronger "hyperglycemia avoidance prioritized" beliefs were independently associated with higher anxiety symptoms (P < 0.05), with similar trends in both subgroups using and not using AIDs. Lower hypoglycemia awareness were independently associated with greater depression symptoms (P < 0.05). In participants not using AIDs, more time in hypoglycemia was related to less anxiety and depression symptoms (P < 0.05). Being female and younger were independently associated with higher anxiety symptoms, while being younger was also independently associated with greater depression symptoms (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our findings revealed relationships of impaired hypoglycemia awareness, hypoglycemia beliefs, CGM-detected hypoglycemia with anxiety and depression symptoms in T1D adults who use CGMs.

Hyperglycaemia aversion in type 1 diabetes: A grounded theory study

OBJECTIVE

Very little is known about the circumstances under which hyperglycaemia aversion develops and is maintained. The present study aimed to identify psychological factors involved in the process of hyperglycaemia aversion and to understand how it affects people's self-management of type 1 diabetes.

DESIGN

Qualitative, in-depth interviews were used.

METHODS

A constructivist grounded theory study, using semi-structured participant interviews, was undertaken to build a theoretical model of the process of hyperglycaemia aversion.

RESULTS

Eighteen participants were interviewed. Fifteen were considered hyperglycaemia averse and included in the analysis. A theoretical model was developed to describe and explain processes involved in hyperglycaemia aversion. Many participants held very high standards for themselves and often had a strong preference for control. While some participants described anxiety associated with higher blood glucose, the most proximal driver of their approach was self-criticism and frustration associated with not meeting their own high standards for blood glucose. A number of attentional processes and beliefs, mostly related to hypoglycaemia, maintained and reinforced their blood glucose preference. Diabetes technology served as an enabler, raiser of standards, and additional critical judge of participants' hyperglycaemia aversion.

CONCLUSIONS

The trans-diagnostic concept of emotional over-control is used to understand the proposed model of processes of hyperglycaemia aversion. The present study offers new insight which will aid clinicians in identifying and supporting those who may be at risk of psychological distress and harm associated with a preference for avoidance of higher blood glucose levels.

6. Glycemic Goals and Hypoglycemia: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Associations Between Hypoglycemia Awareness, Hypoglycemia Beliefs, and Continuous Glucose Monitoring Glycemic Profiles and Anxiety and Depression Symptoms in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Using Advanced Diabetes Technologies

AIMS

To evaluate relationships between hypoglycemia awareness, hypoglycemia beliefs, and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) glycemic profiles and anxiety and depression symptoms in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) who use CGM or automated insulin delivery devices.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey and data collections were completed with 196 T1D adults who used advanced diabetes technologies. We assessed hypoglycemia awareness (Gold instrument), hypoglycemia beliefs (Attitudes to Awareness of Hypoglycemia instrument), CGM glycemic profiles, demographics, and anxiety and depression symptoms (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale). Data were processed via regression analyses and receiver operating characteristic analyses.

RESULTS

Lower hypoglycemia awareness, weaker "hypoglycemia concerns minimized" beliefs, stronger "hyperglycemia avoidance prioritized" beliefs, female, and younger age were independently associated with higher anxiety symptoms (P<0.05). Lower hypoglycemia awareness, less time in hypoglycemia, and younger age were independently associated with greater depression symptoms (P<0.05). Age of <50 years had 77.8% sensitivity and 48.8% specificity in detecting elevated anxiety symptoms. Spending ≥35% of time with glucose levels >180 mg/dL on CGMs had 85.7% sensitivity and 54.3% specificity in detecting elevated depression symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Our findings revealed relationships between impaired hypoglycemia awareness, hypoglycemia beliefs, CGM-detected hypoglycemia and anxiety and depression symptoms in T1D adults who use advanced diabetes technologies.

Hybrid closed-loop systems can help patients with extreme fear of hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia

Fear of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia can lead to inappropriate diabetes self-management and untoward health outcomes. We report two patients, representative of these opposite conditions, who benefited from hybrid closed-loop technology. In the patient with fear of hypoglycemia, time in range improved from 26 to 56% and the patient did not present with severe hypoglycemia. Meanwhile, the patient with hyperglycemia aversiveness had a drastic reduction in time below range, from 19 to 4%. We conclude that hybrid closed-loop technology was an effective tool for improvement of glucose values in two patients with fear of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia aversiveness, respectively.

'You have to use everything and come to some equilibrium': a qualitative study on hypoglycemia self-management in users of continuous glucose monitor with diverse hypoglycemia experiences

INTRODUCTION

Although continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGMs) can help reduce hypoglycemia, about one-quarter of people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) who use CGMs still either spend at least 1% of the time with dangerously low blood glucose or develop severe hypoglycemia. This study explored experiences around hypoglycemia self-management in people who are living with T1D and using CGMs to identify factors contributing to hypoglycemia development.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Purposive sampling and semistructured interviews with 28 respondents with T1D and using CGMs were conducted to explore experiences around hypoglycemic episodes and hypoglycemia self-management during CGM use. Open coding and thematic analysis were employed to identify emergent themes related to hypoglycemia experiences.

RESULTS

About one-third of respondents each respectively spent 0%, 0.1%-0.9% and ≥1% of time in level 2 hypoglycemia; 39% had impaired awareness of hypoglycemia and 32% had severe hypoglycemia in the past 6 months. Four themes were generated: (1) prioritizing symptoms over CGM data (subthemes: hypoglycemia symptoms for confirming hypoglycemia and prompting management actions; minimal management actions without hypoglycemia symptoms); (2) distraction from the demands of daily life; (3) concerns about hypoglycemia management choices (subthemes: fear of rebound hyperglycemia; other health consequences related to sugary food consumption; aversions to treatment foods and treatment food consumption); and (4) social influences on management choices (subthemes: positively perceived social support and inclusion; unwanted attention to oneself or concerns about inconveniencing others; social stigma and criticism related to hypoglycemia and CGM use).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite using CGMs, people with T1D can face a complex biopsychosocial process of managing hypoglycemia. Interventions for addressing psychosocial and behavioral barriers are needed to improve hypoglycemia self-management in those who continue to face challenges in minimizing hypoglycemia while using CGMs.

Changes in attitudes to awareness of hypoglycaemia during a hypoglycaemia awareness restoration programme are associated with avoidance of further severe hypoglycaemia episodes within 24 months: the A2A in HypoCOMPaSS study

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

The aims of this study were to assess cognitions relating to hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia before and after the multimodal HypoCOMPaSS intervention, and to determine cognitive predictors of incomplete response (one or more severe hypoglycaemic episodes over 24 months).

METHODS

This analysis included 91 adults with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia who completed the Attitudes to Awareness of Hypoglycaemia (A2A) questionnaire before, 24 weeks and 24 months after the intervention, which comprised a short psycho-educational programme with optimisation of insulin therapy and glucose monitoring.

RESULTS

The age and diabetes duration of the participants were 48±12 and 29±12 years, respectively (mean±SD). At baseline, 91% reported one or more severe hypoglycaemic episodes over the preceding 12 months; this decreased to <20% at 24 weeks and after 24 months (p=0.001). The attitudinal barrier 'hyperglycaemia avoidance prioritised' (η²_p=0.250, p=0.001) decreased from baseline to 24 weeks, and this decrease was maintained at 24 months (mean±SD=5.3±0.3 vs 4.3±0.3 vs 4.0±0.3). The decrease in 'asymptomatic hypoglycaemia normalised' from baseline (η²_p=0.113, p=0.045) was significant at 24 weeks (1.5±0.3 vs 0.8±0.2). Predictors of incomplete hypoglycaemia response (one or more further episodes of severe hypoglycaemia) were higher baseline rates of severe hypoglycaemia, higher baseline scores for 'asymptomatic hypoglycaemia normalised', reduced change in 'asymptomatic hypoglycaemia normalised' scores at 24 weeks, and lower baseline 'hypoglycaemia concern minimised' scores (all p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Participation in the HypoCOMPaSS RCT was associated with improvements in hypoglycaemia-associated cognitions, with 'hyperglycaemia avoidance prioritised' most prevalent. Incomplete prevention of subsequent severe hypoglycaemia episodes was associated with persistence of the cognition 'asymptomatic hypoglycaemia normalised'. Understanding and addressing cognitive barriers to hypoglycaemia avoidance is important in individuals prone to severe hypoglycaemia episodes.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

www.isrctn.org : ISRCTN52164803 and https://eudract.ema.europa.eu : EudraCT2009-015396-27.

6. Glycemic Targets: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

6. Glycemic Targets: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.