Aims/hypothesis: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is a life-threatening infection caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. Diabetes has rapidly emerged as a major comorbidity for COVID-19 severity. However, the phenotypic characteristics of diabetes in COVID-19 patients are unknown. Methods: We conducted a nationwide multicentre observational study in people with diabetes hospitalised for COVID-19 in 53 French centres in the period 10–31 March 2020. The primary outcome combined tracheal intubation for mechanical ventilation and/or death within 7 days of admission. Age- and sex-adjusted multivariable logistic regressions were performed to assess the prognostic value of clinical and biological features with the endpoint. ORs are reported for a 1 SD increase after standardisation. Results: The current analysis focused on 1317 participants: 64.9% men, mean age 69.8 ± 13.0 years, median BMI 28.4 (25th–75th percentile: 25.0–32.7) kg/m²; with a predominance of type 2 diabetes (88.5%). Microvascular and macrovascular diabetic complications were found in 46.8% and 40.8% of cases, respectively. The primary outcome was encountered in 29.0% (95% CI 26.6, 31.5) of participants, while 10.6% (9.0, 12.4) died and 18.0% (16.0, 20.2) were discharged on day 7. In univariate analysis, characteristics prior to admission significantly associated with the primary outcome were sex, BMI and previous treatment with renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers, but not age, type of diabetes, HbA_1c, diabetic complications or glucose-lowering therapies. In multivariable analyses with covariates prior to admission, only BMI remained positively associated with the primary outcome (OR 1.28 [1.10, 1.47]). On admission, dyspnoea (OR 2.10 [1.31, 3.35]), as well as lymphocyte count (OR 0.67 [0.50, 0.88]), C-reactive protein (OR 1.93 [1.43, 2.59]) and AST (OR 2.23 [1.70, 2.93]) levels were independent predictors of the primary outcome. Finally, age (OR 2.48 [1.74, 3.53]), treated obstructive sleep apnoea (OR 2.80 [1.46, 5.38]), and microvascular (OR 2.14 [1.16, 3.94]) and macrovascular complications (OR 2.54 [1.44, 4.50]) were independently associated with the risk of death on day 7. Conclusions/interpretations: In people with diabetes hospitalised for COVID-19, BMI, but not long-term glucose control, was positively and independently associated with tracheal intubation and/or death within 7 days. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT04324736.

Background: A composite metric for the quality of glycemia from continuous glucose monitor (CGM) tracings could be useful for assisting with basic clinical interpretation of CGM data. Methods: We assembled a data set of 14-day CGM tracings from 225 insulin-treated adults with diabetes. Using a balanced incomplete block design, 330 clinicians who were highly experienced with CGM analysis and interpretation ranked the CGM tracings from best to worst quality of glycemia. We used principal component analysis and multiple regressions to develop a model to predict the clinician ranking based on seven standard metrics in an Ambulatory Glucose Profile: very low–glucose and low-glucose hypoglycemia; very high–glucose and high-glucose hyperglycemia; time in range; mean glucose; and coefficient of variation. Results: The analysis showed that clinician rankings depend on two components, one related to hypoglycemia that gives more weight to very low-glucose than to low-glucose and the other related to hyperglycemia that likewise gives greater weight to very high-glucose than to high-glucose. These two components should be calculated and displayed separately, but they can also be combined into a single Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) that corresponds closely to the clinician rankings of the overall quality of glycemia (r = 0.95). The GRI can be displayed graphically on a GRI Grid with the hypoglycemia component on the horizontal axis and the hyperglycemia component on the vertical axis. Diagonal lines divide the graph into five zones (quintiles) corresponding to the best (0th to 20th percentile) to worst (81st to 100th percentile) overall quality of glycemia. The GRI Grid enables users to track sequential changes within an individual over time and compare groups of individuals. Conclusion: The GRI is a single-number summary of the quality of glycemia. Its hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia components provide actionable scores and a graphical display (the GRI Grid) that can be used by clinicians and researchers to determine the glycemic effects of prescribed and investigational treatments.

Aims/hypothesis: Our study aims to uncover glycaemic phenotype heterogeneity in type 1 diabetes. Methods: In the Study of the French-speaking Society of Type 1 Diabetes (SFDT1), we characterised glycaemic heterogeneity thanks to a set of complementary metrics: HbA_1c, time in range (TIR), time below range (TBR), CV, Gold score and glycaemia risk index (GRI). Applying the Discriminative Dimensionality Reduction with Trees (DDRTree) algorithm, we created a phenotypic tree, i.e. a 2D visual mapping. We also carried out a clustering analysis for comparison. Results: We included 618 participants with type 1 diabetes (52.9% men, mean age 40.6 years [SD 14.1]). Our phenotypic tree identified seven glycaemic phenotypes. The 2D phenotypic tree comprised a main branch in the proximal region and glycaemic phenotypes in the distal areas. Dimension 1, the horizontal dimension, was positively associated with GRI (coefficient [95% CI]) (0.54 [0.52, 0.57]), HbA_1c (0.39 [0.35, 0.42]), CV (0.24 [0.19, 0.28]) and TBR (0.11 [0.06, 0.15]), and negatively with TIR (−0.52 [−0.54, −0.49]). The vertical dimension was positively associated with TBR (0.41 [0.38, 0.44]), CV (0.40 [0.37, 0.43]), TIR (0.16 [0.12, 0.20]), Gold score (0.10 [0.06, 0.15]) and GRI (0.06 [0.02, 0.11]), and negatively with HbA_1c (−0.21 [−0.25, −0.17]). Notably, socioeconomic factors, cardiovascular risk indicators, retinopathy and treatment strategy were significant determinants of glycaemic phenotype diversity. The phenotypic tree enabled more granularity than traditional clustering in revealing clinically relevant subgroups of people with type 1 diabetes. Conclusions/interpretation: Our study advances the current understanding of the complex glycaemic profile in people with type 1 diabetes and suggests that strategies based on isolated glycaemic metrics might not capture the complexity of the glycaemic phenotypes in real life. Relying on these phenotypes could improve patient stratification in type 1 diabetes care and personalise disease management. Graphical

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of insulin injection adherence, smart insulin pen engagement, and glycemic control using real-world data from 16 countries from adults self-administering basal insulin degludec and bolus insulin with a smart insulin pen (NovoPen 6 or NovoPen Echo Plus) alongside continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were aggregated over 14-day periods. Treatment adherence was defined according to the number of missed basal and missed bolus insulin doses and smart pen engagement according to the number of days with data uploads. RESULTS: Data from 3,945 adults, including 25,157 14-day periods with ≥70% CGM coverage, were analyzed. On average, 0.2 basal and 6.0 bolus insulin doses were missed over 14 days. The estimated probability of missing at least one basal insulin dose over a 14-day period was 17.6% (95% CI 16.5, 18.7). Missing one basal or bolus insulin dose per 14 days was associated with a significant decrease in percentage of time with glucose levels in range (TIR) (3.9–10.0 mmol/L), of −2.8% (95% CI −3.7, −1.8) and −1.7% (−1.8, −1.6), respectively; therefore, missing two basal or four bolus doses would decrease TIR by >5%. Smart pen engagement was associated positively with glycemic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This combined analysis of real-world smart pen and CGM data showed that missing two basal or four bolus insulin doses over a 14-day period would be associated with a clinically relevant decrease in TIR. Smart insulin pens provide valuable insights into treatment injection behaviors.