Progress in developing therapies for the maintenance of endogenous insulin secretion in, or the prevention of, type 1 diabetes has been hindered by limited animal models, the length and cost of clinical trials, difficulties in identifying individuals who will progress faster to a clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, and heterogeneous clinical responses in intervention trials. Classic placebo-controlled intervention trials often include monotherapies, broad participant populations and extended follow-up periods focused on clinical endpoints. While this approach remains the ‘gold standard’ of clinical research, efforts are underway to implement new approaches harnessing the power of artificial intelligence and machine learning to accelerate drug discovery and efficacy testing. Here, we review emerging approaches for repurposing agents used to treat diseases that share pathogenic pathways with type 1 diabetes and selecting synergistic combinations of drugs to maximise therapeutic efficacy. We discuss how emerging multi-omics technologies, including analysis of antigen processing and presentation to adaptive immune cells, may lead to the discovery of novel biomarkers and subsequent translation into antigen-specific immunotherapies. We also discuss the potential for using artificial intelligence to create ‘digital twin’ models that enable rapid in silico testing of personalised agents as well as dose determination. To conclude, we discuss some limitations of artificial intelligence and machine learning, including issues pertaining to model interpretability and bias, as well as the continued need for validation studies via confirmatory intervention trials. Graphical Abstract

Background: Although prior research has identified multiple risk factors for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), clinicians continue to lack clinic-ready models to predict dangerous and costly episodes of DKA. We asked whether we could apply deep learning, specifically the use of a long short-term memory (LSTM) model, to accurately predict the 180-day risk of DKA-related hospitalization for youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Objective: We aimed to describe the development of an LSTM model to predict the 180-day risk of DKA-related hospitalization for youth with T1D. Methods: We used 17 consecutive calendar quarters of clinical data (January 10, 2016, to March 18, 2020) for 1745 youths aged 8 to 18 years with T1D from a pediatric diabetes clinic network in the Midwestern United States. The input data included demographics, discrete clinical observations (laboratory results, vital signs, anthropometric measures, diagnosis, and procedure codes), medications, visit counts by type of encounter, number of historic DKA episodes, number of days since last DKA admission, patient-reported outcomes (answers to clinic intake questions), and data features derived from diabetes- and nondiabetes-related clinical notes via natural language processing. We trained the model using input data from quarters 1 to 7 (n=1377), validated it using input from quarters 3 to 9 in a partial out-of-sample (OOS-P; n=1505) cohort, and further validated it in a full out-of-sample (OOS-F; n=354) cohort with input from quarters 10 to 15. Results: DKA admissions occurred at a rate of 5% per 180-days in both out-of-sample cohorts. In the OOS-P and OOS-F cohorts, the median age was 13.7 (IQR 11.3-15.8) years and 13.1 (IQR 10.7-15.5) years; median glycated hemoglobin levels at enrollment were 8.6% (IQR 7.6%-9.8%) and 8.1% (IQR 6.9%-9.5%); recall was 33% (26/80) and 50% (9/18) for the top-ranked 5% of youth with T1D; and 14.15% (213/1505) and 12.7% (45/354) had prior DKA admissions (after the T1D diagnosis), respectively. For lists rank ordered by the probability of hospitalization, precision increased from 33% to 56% to 100% for positions 1 to 80, 1 to 25, and 1 to 10 in the OOS-P cohort and from 50% to 60% to 80% for positions 1 to 18, 1 to 10, and 1 to 5 in the OOS-F cohort, respectively. Conclusions: The proposed LSTM model for predicting 180-day DKA-related hospitalization was valid in this sample. Future research should evaluate model validity in multiple populations and settings to account for health inequities that may be present in different segments of the population (eg, racially or socioeconomically diverse cohorts). Rank ordering youth by probability of DKA-related hospitalization will allow clinics to identify the most at-risk youth. The clinical implication of this is that clinics may then create and evaluate novel preventive interventions based on available resources.

Aims We examined diabetes status (no diabetes; type 1 diabetes [T1D]; type 2 diabetes [T2D]) and other demographic and clinical factors as correlates of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related hospitalization. Further, we evaluated predictors of COVID-19-related hospitalization in T1D and T2D. Methods We analyzed electronic health record data from the de-identified COVID-19 database (December 2019 through mid-September 2020; 87 US health systems). Logistic mixed models were used to examine predictors of hospitalization at index encounters associated with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results In 116,370 adults (>=18 years old) with COVID-19 (93,098 no diabetes; 802 T1D; 22,470 T2D), factors that independently increased risk for hospitalization included diabetes, male sex, public health insurance, decreased body mass index (BMI; 25.0–29.9 kg/m²), vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency, and Elixhauser comorbidity score. After further adjustment for concurrent hyperglycemia and acidosis in those with diabetes, hospitalization risk was substantially higher in T1D than T2D and in those with low vitamin D and elevated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). Conclusions The higher hospitalization risk in T1D versus T2D warrants further investigation. Modifiable risk factors such as vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency, BMI, and elevated HbA1c may serve as prognostic indicators for COVID-19-related hospitalization in adults with diabetes.

Background: The Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) was developed in adults with diabetes and is a validated metric of quality of glycemia. Little is known about the relationship between GRI and type 1 diabetes (T1D) self-management habits, a validated assessment of youths’ engagement in habits associated with glycemic outcomes. Method: We retrospectively examined the relationship between GRI and T1D self-management habits in youth with T1D who received care from a Midwest pediatric diabetes clinic network. The GRI was calculated using seven days of continuous glucose monitor (CGM) data, and T1D self-management habits were assessed ±seven days from the GRI score. A mixed-effects Poisson regression model was used to evaluate the total number of habits youth engaged in with GRI, glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), age, race, ethnicity, and insurance type as fixed effects and participant ID as a random effect to account for multiple clinic visits per individual. Results: The cohort included 1182 youth aged 2.5 to 18.0 years (mean = 13.8, SD = 3.5) comprising 50.8% male, 84.6% non-Hispanic White, and 64.8% commercial insurance users across a total of 6029 clinic visits. Glycemia Risk Index scores decreased as total number of habits performed increased, suggesting youth who performed more self-management habits achieved a higher quality of glycemia. Conclusions: In youth using CGMs, GRI may serve as an easily obtainable metric to help identify youth with above target glycemia, and engagement/disengagement in the T1D self-management habits may inform clinicians with suitable interventions for improving glycemic outcomes.

Objectives: We sought to examine in individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection whether risk for thrombotic and thromboembolic events (TTE) is modified by presence of a diabetes diagnosis. Furthermore, we analysed whether differential risk for TTEs exists in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) versus type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).Design: Retrospective case–control study.Setting: The December 2020 version of theCerner Real-World DataCOVID-19 database is a deidentified, nationwide database containing electronic medical record (EMR) data from 87 US-based health systems.Participants: We analysed EMR data for 322 482 patients >17 years old with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who received care between December 2019 and mid-September 2020. Of these, 2750 had T1DM; 57 811 had T2DM; and 261 921 did not have diabetes.Outcome: TTE, defined as presence of a diagnosis code for myocardial infarction, thrombotic stroke, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis or other TTE.Results: Odds of TTE were substantially higher in patients with T1DM (adjusted OR (AOR) 2.23 (1.93–2.59)) and T2DM (AOR 1.52 (1.46–1.58)) versus no diabetes. Among patients with diabetes, odds of TTE were lower in T2DM versus T1DM (AOR 0.84 (0.72–0.98)).Conclusions: Risk of TTE during COVID-19 illness is substantially higher in patients with diabetes. Further, risk for TTEs is higher in those with T1DM versus T2DM. Confirmation of increased diabetes-associated clotting risk in future studies may warrant incorporation of diabetes status into SARS-CoV-2 infection treatment algorithms.

Background: The glycemia risk index (GRI) is a composite metric developed and used to estimate quality of glycemia in adults with diabetes who use continuous glucose monitor (CGM) devices. In a cohort of youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D), we examined the utility of the GRI for evaluating quality of glycemia between clinic visits by analyzing correlations between the GRI and longitudinal glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) measures. Method: Using electronic health records and CGM data, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to analyze the relationship between the GRI and longitudinal HbA1c measures in youth (T1D duration ≥1 year; ≥50% CGM wear time) receiving care from a Midwest pediatric diabetes clinic network (March 2016 to May 2022). Furthermore, we analyzed correlations between HbA1c and the GRI high and low components, which reflect time spent with high/very high and low/very low glucose, respectively. Results: In this cohort of 719 youth (aged = 2.5-18.0 years [median = 13.4; interquartile range [IQR] = 5.2]; 50.5% male; 83.7% non-Hispanic White; 68.0% commercial insurance), baseline GRI scores positively correlated with HbA1c measures at baseline and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months later (r = 0.68, 0.65, 0.60, 0.57, and 0.52, respectively). At all time points, strong positive correlations existed between HbA1c and time spent in hyperglycemia. Substantially weaker, negative correlations existed between HbA1c and time spent in hypoglycemia. Conclusions: In youth with T1D, the GRI may be useful for evaluating quality of glycemia between scheduled clinic visits. Additional CGM-derived metrics are needed to quantify risk for hypoglycemia in this population.