Evaluating the Incidence and Risk Factors Associated With Mild and Severe Hypoglycemia in Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes

Risk factors and prediction of hypoglycaemia using the Hypo-RESOLVE cohort: a secondary analysis of pooled data from insulin clinical trials

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

The objective of the Hypoglycaemia REdefining SOLutions for better liVES (Hypo-RESOLVE) project is to use a dataset of pooled clinical trials across pharmaceutical and device companies in people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes to examine factors associated with incident hypoglycaemia events and to quantify the prediction of these events.

METHODS

Data from 90 trials with 46,254 participants were pooled. Analyses were done for type 1 and type 2 diabetes separately. Poisson mixed models, adjusted for age, sex, diabetes duration and trial identifier were fitted to assess the association of clinical variables with hypoglycaemia event counts. Tree-based gradient-boosting algorithms (XGBoost) were fitted using training data and their predictive performance in terms of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) evaluated on test data. Baseline models including age, sex and diabetes duration were compared with models that further included a score of hypoglycaemia in the first 6 weeks from study entry, and full models that included further clinical variables. The relative predictive importance of each covariate was assessed using XGBoost's importance procedure. Prediction across the entire trial duration for each trial (mean of 34.8 weeks for type 1 diabetes and 25.3 weeks for type 2 diabetes) was assessed.

RESULTS

For both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, variables associated with more frequent hypoglycaemia included female sex, white ethnicity, longer diabetes duration, treatment with human as opposed to analogue-only insulin, higher glucose variability, higher score for hypoglycaemia across the 6 week baseline period, lower BP, lower lipid levels and treatment with psychoactive drugs. Prediction of any hypoglycaemia event of any severity was greater than prediction of hypoglycaemia requiring assistance (level 3 hypoglycaemia), for which events were sparser. For prediction of level 1 or worse hypoglycaemia during the whole follow-up period, the AUC was 0.835 (95% CI 0.826, 0.844) in type 1 diabetes and 0.840 (95% CI 0.831, 0.848) in type 2 diabetes. For level 3 hypoglycaemia, the AUC was lower at 0.689 (95% CI 0.667, 0.712) for type 1 diabetes and 0.705 (95% CI 0.662, 0.748) for type 2 diabetes. Compared with the baseline models, almost all the improvement in prediction could be captured by the individual's hypoglycaemia history, glucose variability and blood glucose over a 6 week baseline period.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Although hypoglycaemia rates show large variation according to sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and treatment history, looking at a 6 week period of hypoglycaemia events and glucose measurements predicts future hypoglycaemia risk.

Factors and economic burden of non-severe hypoglycemia among insulin-treated type 2 diabetes patients: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

This cross-sectional survey was performed to assess the prevalence, factors, and economic burden of non-severe hypoglycemia among insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients in northern Thailand.

METHODS

Between April 2021 and August 2022, 600 participants were evaluated via structured questionnaires containing sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, medications, and economic burden. Patients were divided into two groups (having and not having non-severe hypoglycemia). Variables with a p value <.05 in the univariate model were included in the multivariate model.

RESULTS

The percentage of non-severe hypoglycemia was 50.3% (302/600). Of all participants, the average age was 61.4 ± 26.0 years, 55.7% were female, 53.5% used premix insulin, and the average duration of diabetes was 16.1 ± 10.0 years. Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that age (OR = .96; p <.001), duration of diabetes (OR = 1.04; p <.001), BMI (OR = .95; p = .002), thiazolidinedione (OR = 1.56; p = .012) and insulin regimens were associated with having non-severe hypoglycemia. Compared to basal insulin, basal bolus (OR = 6.93; p = .001), basal plus (OR = 3.58; p <.001), and premix insulin (OR = 1.83; p =.003) were associated with hypoglycemia. Greater numbers of sick leave were found in the hypoglycemia group (14 vs 4 patients, p = .029).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings help to individuate those patients who are at higher risk of non-severe hypoglycemia in insulin-treated T2D patients. Compared to the non-hypoglycemia group, patients with hypoglycemia were younger, had longer diabetes duration, lower BMI, received thiazolidinedione and insulin regimens such as premix, basal plus, or basal bolus insulins, and more productivity loss.

'Didn't See the Need': Misperceptions about glucagon from the perspectives of people with diabetes and their caregivers

AIMS

Severe hypoglycaemia among people with diabetes who use insulin can be a life-threatening complication if left untreated. Although glucagon has been approved for treatment of hypoglycaemia since the 1960s, it has been underutilized. We aimed to understand the perceptions of people with diabetes and their caregivers about glucagon.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth, one-on-one telephone interviews with people with diabetes and their caregivers in the United States. The interviews included questions around general awareness of glucagon, reasons for owning or not owning glucagon, and suggestions for improving understanding of glucagon as treatment for severe hypoglycaemia. Initial synopsis and inductive codebook schema were used to analyse the responses by two independent researchers. Themes were developed from the codes, and codes were re-mapped back to the themes.

RESULTS

There were 60 dyads of people with diabetes and their caregivers (N = 120). Four themes developed from the interviews: (1) for most participants, the stated reasons for not owning or renewing a prescription for glucagon included unawareness of the medication, its advantages and its value; (2) misperceptions about glucagon occurred frequently; (3) caregivers often lacked confidence in administering reconstituted injectable glucagon; and (4) education and training from healthcare providers about glucagon would be welcomed.

CONCLUSIONS

This study emphasizes the need for healthcare providers to discuss hypoglycaemia prevention and events at each clinical visit, including the use of glucagon in the case of severe hypoglycaemia. Healthcare providers are encouraged to assess the knowledge of people with diabetes and their caregivers regarding treatment and prevention of hypoglycaemia.