Design of clinical trials to assess diabetes treatment: Minimum duration of continuous glucose monitoring data to estimate time-in-ranges with the desired precision

Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Achieves and Maintains Recommended Time in Range Levels for Up To 2 Years: Predictors of Best Efficacy

Aim: To evaluate the long-term efficacy, up to 2 years, of an advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system and to assess predictors of best results of the therapy. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 296 adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus [mean age 42.8 ± 16.5 years, men 42.9%, duration of diabetes 22.5 ± 12.8 years, body mass index 24.9 ± 4.7 kg/m2, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 63.4 ± 12.2 mmol/mol (8.0 ± 1.1%) ] who used the MiniMed™ 780G system. Demographic and clinical data were recorded. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived metrics and insulin requirement were analyzed from the 4 weeks before and from every quarter after the switch to the AHCL system. Results: In the first quarter of AHCL treatment, all CGM metrics improved. Time in range (TIR) increased from 58.1 ± 17.5% to 70.3 ± 9.5% (P < 0.0001). The improvement lasted for up to 2 years of observation regardless of previous insulin therapies. Throughout the period of observation, 53.4% of participants achieved mean TIR >70%, 92.6% mean time below range <4%, and 46% mean glucose management indicator <53 mmol/mol (7.0%). At univariable logistic regression older age, lower baseline HbA1c and insulin requirement were associated with mean TIR >70%. At multivariable analysis, lower HbA1c remained independently associated with a better glycemic control. However, mean TIR increased more in participants with a higher baseline HbA1c. Conclusions: Switching to an AHCL leads to a rapid improvement in glycemic control lasting for up to 24 months along with a low risk for hypoglycemia, confirming the safety of the system. Lower baseline HbA1c was the main predictor of better efficacy of therapy, although higher baseline HbA1c was associated with the greatest improvement in mean TIR.

Predicting Phase 1 Lymphoma Clinical Trial Durations Using Machine Learning: An In-Depth Analysis and Broad Application Insights

Lymphoma diagnoses in the US are substantial, with an estimated 89,380 new cases in 2023, necessitating innovative treatment approaches. Phase 1 clinical trials play a pivotal role in this context. We developed a binary predictive model to assess trial adherence to expected average durations, analyzing 1089 completed Phase 1 lymphoma trials from clinicaltrials.gov. Using machine learning, the Random Forest model demonstrated high efficacy with an accuracy of 0.7248 and an ROC-AUC of 0.7677 for lymphoma trials. The difference in the accuracy level of the Random Forest is statistically significant compared to the other alternative models, as determined by a 95% confidence interval on the testing set. Importantly, this model maintained an ROC-AUC of 0.7701 when applied to lung cancer trials, showcasing its versatility. A key insight is the correlation between higher predicted probabilities and extended trial durations, offering nuanced insights beyond binary predictions. Our research contributes to enhanced clinical research planning and potential improvements in patient outcomes in oncology.

Research progress in the application of time in range: more than a percentage

ABSTRACT

Glucose monitoring is an important part of medical care in diabetes mellitus, which not only helps assess glycemic control and treatment safety, but also assists with treatment adjustment. With the development of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), the use of CGM has increased rapidly. With the wealth of glucose data produced by CGM, new metrics are greatly needed to optimally evaluate glucose status and guide the treatment. One of the parameters that CGM provides, time in range (TIR), has been recognized as a key metric by the international consensus. Before the adoption of TIR in clinical practice, several issues including the minimum length of CGM use, the setting of the target range, and individualized TIR goals are summarized. Additionally, we discussed the mounting evidence supporting the association between TIR and diabetes-related outcomes. As a novel glucose metric, it is of interest to compare TIR with other conventional glucose markers such as glycated hemoglobin A1c. It is anticipated that the use of TIR may provide further information on the quality of glucose control and lead to improved diabetes management.

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.

Impact of Different Types of Data Loss on Optimal Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sampling Duration

Aims: To determine if a longer duration of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sampling is needed to correctly assess the quality of glycemic control given different types of data loss. Materials and Methods: Data loss was generated in two different methods until the desired percentage of data loss (10-50%) was achieved with (1) eliminating random individual CGM values and (2) eliminating gaps of a predefined time length (1-5 h). For CGM metrics, days required to cross predetermined targets for median absolute percentage error (MdAPE) for the different data loss strategies were calculated and compared with current international consensus recommendation of >70% of optimal data sampling. Results: Up to 90 days of CGM data from 291 adults with type 1 diabetes were analyzed. MdAPE threshold crossing remained virtually constant for random CGM data loss up to 50% for all CGM metrics. However, the MdAPE crossing threshold increased when losing data with longer gaps. For all CGM metrics assessed in our study (%T70-180, %T < 70, %T < 54, %T > 180, and %T > 250), up to 50% data loss in a random manner did not cause any significant change on optimal sampling duration; however, >30% of data loss in gaps up to 5 h required longer optimal sampling duration. Conclusions: Optimal sampling duration for CGM metrics depends on percentage of data loss as well as duration of data loss. International consensus recommendation for 70% CGM data adequacy is sufficient to report %T70-180 with 2 weeks of data without large data gaps.

Identifying Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Using Machine Learning

Background and Aims: The recent increase in wearable devices for diabetes care, and in particular the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), generates large data sets and associated cybersecurity challenges. In this study, we demonstrate that it is possible to identify CGM data at an individual level by using standard machine learning techniques. Methods: The publicly available REPLACE-BG data set (NCT02258373) containing 226 adult participants with type 1 diabetes (T1D) wearing CGM over 6 months was used. A support vector machine (SVM) binary classifier aiming to determine if a CGM data stream belongs to an individual participant was trained and tested for each of the subjects in the data set. To generate the feature vector used for classification, 12 standard glycemic metrics were selected and evaluated at different time periods of the day (24 h, day, night, breakfast, lunch, and dinner). Different window lengths of CGM data (3, 7, 15, and 30 days) were chosen to evaluate their impact on the classification performance. A recursive feature selection method was employed to select the minimum subset of features that did not significantly degrade performance. Results: A total of 40 features were generated as a result of evaluating the glycemic metrics over the selected time periods (24 h, day, night, breakfast, lunch, and dinner). A window length of 15 days was found to perform the best in terms of accuracy (86.8% ± 12.8%) and F1 score (0.86 ± 0.16). The corresponding sensitivity and specificity were 85.7% ± 19.5% and 87.9% ± 17.5%, respectively. Through recursive feature selection, a subset of 9 features was shown to perform similarly to the 40 features. Conclusion: It is possible to determine with a relatively high accuracy if a CGM data stream belongs to an individual. The proposed approach can be used as a digital CGM "fingerprint" or for detecting glycemic changes within an individual, for example during intercurrent illness.

Choosing the duration of continuous glucose monitoring for reliable assessment of time in range: A new analytical approach to overcome the limitations of correlation-based methods

AIMS

Reliable estimation of the time spent in different glycaemic ranges (time-in-ranges) requires sufficiently long continuous glucose monitoring. In a 2019 paper (Battelino et al., Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: recommendations from the international consensus on time in range. Diabetes Care. 2019;42:1593-1603), an international panel of experts suggested using a correlation-based approach to obtain the minimum number of days for reliable time-in-ranges estimates. More recently (in Camerlingo et al., Design of clinical trials to assess diabetes treatment: minimum duration of continuous glucose monitoring data to estimate time-in-ranges with the desired precision. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2021;23:2446-2454) we presented a mathematical equation linking the number of monitoring days to the uncertainty around time-in-ranges estimates. In this work, we compare these two approaches, mainly focusing on time spent in (70-180) mg/dL range (TIR).

METHODS

The first 100 and 150 days of data were extracted from study A (148 subjects, ~180 days), and the first 100, 150, 200, 250 and 300 days of data from study B (45 subjects, ~365 days). For each of these data windows, the minimum monitoring duration was computed using correlation-based and equation-based approaches. The suggestions were compared for the windows of different durations extracted from the same study, and for the windows of equal duration extracted from different studies.

RESULTS

When changing the dataset duration, the correlation-based approach produces inconsistent results, ranging from 23 to 64 days, for TIR. The equation-based approach was found to be robust versus this issue, as it is affected only by the characteristics of the population being monitored. Indeed, to grant a confidence interval of 5% around TIR, it suggests 18 days for windows from study A, and 17 days for windows from study B. Similar considerations hold for other time-in-ranges.

CONCLUSIONS

The equation-based approach offers advantages for the design of clinical trials having time-in-ranges as final end points, with focus on trial duration.

A Mathematical Formula to Determine the Minimum Continuous Glucose Monitoring Duration to Assess Time-in-ranges: Sensitivity Analysis Over the Parameters

In diabetes management, the fraction of time spent with glucose concentration within the physiological range of [70-180] mg/dL, namely time in range (TIR) is often computed by clinicians to assess glycemic control using a continuous glucose monitoring sensor. However, a sufficiently long monitoring period is required to reliably estimate this index. A mathematical equation derived by our group provides the minimum trial duration granting a desired uncertainty around the estimated TIR. The equation involves two parameters, p_r and α, related to the population under analysis, which should be set based on the clinician's experience. In this work, we evaluated the sensitivity of the formula to the parameters.Considering two independent datasets, we predicted the uncertainty of TIR estimate for a population, using the parameters of the formula estimated for a different population. We also stressed the robustness of the formula by testing wider ranges of parameters, thus assessing the impact of large errors in the parameters' estimates.Plausible errors on the α estimate impact very slightly on the prediction (relative discrepancy < 5%), thus we suggest using a fixed value for α independently on the population being analyzed. Instead, p_r should be adjusted to the TIR expected in the population, considering that errors around 20% result in a relative discrepancy of ~10%.In conclusion, the proposed formula is sufficiently robust to parameters setting and can be used by investigators to determine a suitable duration of the study.