Objective: To bridge the gap between laboratory-measured hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived time in target range (TIR), introducing TIR-driven estimated A1c (eA1c). Methods: Data from Protocol 1 (training data set) and Protocol 3 (testing data set) of the International Diabetes Closed-Loop Trial were used. Training data included 3 months of CGM recordings from 125 individuals with type 1 diabetes, and HbA1c at 3 months; testing data included 9 months of CGM recordings from 168 individuals, and HbA1c at 3, 6, and 9 months. Hemoglobin glycation was modeled by a first-order differential equation driven by TIR. Three model parameters were estimated in the training data set and fixed thereafter. A fourth parameter was estimated in the testing data set, to individualize the model by calibration with month 3 HbA1c. The accuracy of eA1c was assessed on months 6 and 9 HbA1c. Results: eA1c was tracked for each individual in the testing data set for 6 months after calibration. Mean absolute differences between HbA1c and eA1c 3- and 6-month postcalibration were 0.25% and 0.24%; Pearson's correlation coefficients were 0.93 and 0.93; percentages of eA1c within 10% from reference HbA1c were 97.6% and 96.3%, respectively. Conclusions: HbA1c and TIR are reflections of the same underlying process of glycemic fluctuation. Using a model individualized with one HbA1c measurement, TIR provides an accurate approximation of HbA1c for at least 6 months, reflecting blood glucose fluctuations and nonglycemic biological factors. Thus, eA1c is an intermediate metric that mathematically adjusts a CGM-based assessment of glycemic control to individual glycation rates.

Introduction: An error grid compares measured versus reference glucose concentrations to assign clinical risk values to observed errors. Widely used error grids for blood glucose monitors (BGMs) have limited value because they do not also reflect clinical accuracy of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs). Methods: Diabetes Technology Society (DTS) convened 89 international experts in glucose monitoring to (1) smooth the borders of the Surveillance Error Grid (SEG) zones and create a user-friendly tool—the DTS Error Grid; (2) define five risk zones of clinical point accuracy (A-E) to be identical for BGMs and CGMs; (3) determine a relationship between DTS Error Grid percent in Zone A and mean absolute relative difference (MARD) from analyzing 22 BGM and nine CGM accuracy studies; and (4) create trend risk categories (1-5) for CGM trend accuracy. Results: The DTS Error Grid for point accuracy contains five risk zones (A-E) with straight-line borders that can be applied to both BGM and CGM accuracy data. In a data set combining point accuracy data from 18 BGMs, 2.6% of total data pairs equally moved from Zones A to B and vice versa (SEG compared with DTS Error Grid). For every 1% increase in percent data in Zone A, the MARD decreased by approximately 0.33%. We also created a DTS Trend Accuracy Matrix with five trend risk categories (1-5) for CGM-reported trend indicators compared with reference trends calculated from reference glucose. Conclusion: The DTS Error Grid combines contemporary clinician input regarding clinical point accuracy for BGMs and CGMs. The DTS Trend Accuracy Matrix assesses accuracy of CGM trend indicators.

Background: With the proliferation of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), a number of metrics were developed to assess quality of glycemic control. Many of them are highly correlated. Thus, we aim to identify the principal dimensions of glycemic control—a minimal set of metrics, necessary and sufficient for comprehensive assessment of diabetes management. Methods: Seventy-five thousand five hundred sixty-three 2-week CGM profiles recorded in six studies by 790 individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes were used to compute mean glucose (MG), percentage time >180 mg/dL (TAR), >250 mg/dL (TAR2), <70 mg/dL (TBR), <54 mg/dL (TBR2), and coefficient of variation (CV). The true dimensionality of the glycemic-metric space was identified in a training set (53,380 profiles) and validated in an independent test set (22,183 profiles). Results: Correlation analysis identified two blocks of metrics—(MG, TAR, TAR2) and (TBR, TBR2, CV)—each with high internal correlation, but insignificant between-block correlation, suggesting that the true dimensionality of the glycemic-metric space is 2. Principal component analysis confirmed two essential metrics quantifying exposure to hyperglycemia (i.e., treatment efficacy) and risk for hypoglycemia (i.e., treatment safety), and explaining ∼90% of the variance in the training and test data. Conclusion: Two essential metrics, treatment efficacy and treatment safety, are necessary and sufficient to characterize glycemic control in diabetes. Thus, quantitatively, diabetes treatment optimization is reduced to a two-dimensional problem, meaning that minimizing both exposure to hyperglycemia and risk for hypoglycemia will lead to improvement in any other metric of glycemic control.

Objective: Using a multistep machine-learning procedure, add virtual continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) traces to the original sparse data of the landmark Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT). Assess the association of CGM metrics with the microvascular complications of type 1 diabetes observed during the DCCT and establish time-in-range (TIR) as a viable marker of glycemic control. Research Design and Methods: Utilizing the DCCT glycated hemoglobin data obtained every 1 or 3 months plus quarterly 7-point blood glucose (BG) profiles in a multistep procedure: (i) utilized archival BG traces to model interday BG variability and estimate glycated hemoglobin; (ii) trained across the DCCT BG profiles and associated each profile with an archival BG trace; and (iii) used previously identified CGM "motifs" to associate a CGM trace to a BG trace, for each DCCT participant. Results: TIR (70-180 mg/dL) computed from virtual CGM data over 14 days prior to each glycated hemoglobin measurement reproduced the observed glycemic control differences between the intensive and conventional DCCT groups, with TIR generally >60% and <40% in these groups, respectively. Similar to glycated hemoglobin, TIR was associated with the risk of development or progression of retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy (all P-values <0.0001). Poisson regressions indicated that TIR predicted retinopathy and microalbuminuria similarly to the original glycated hemoglobin data. Conclusions: The landmark DCCT was revisited using contemporary data science methods, which allowed adding individual CGM traces to the original data. Fourteen-day CGM metrics predicted microvascular diabetes complications similarly to glycated hemoglobin. Clinical Trials Registration: Not a clinical trial.

With increasing prevalence of obesity and cardiovascular diseases, there is a growing interest in the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) as an adjunct therapy in type 1 diabetes (T1D). The GLP-1RAs are currently not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of T1D in the absence of randomized controlled trials documenting efficacy and safety of these agents in this population. The Diabetes Technology Society convened a series of three consensus meetings of clinicians and researchers with expertise in diabetes technology, GLP-1RA therapy, and T1D management. The project was aimed at synthesizing current literature and providing conclusions on the use of GLP-1RA therapy as an adjunct to automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in adults with T1D. The expert panel members met virtually three times on January 17, 2024, and April 24, 2024, and August 14, 2024, to discuss topics ranging from physiology and outcomes of GLP-1RAs in T1D to limitations of current sensors, algorithms, and insulin for AID systems. The panelists also identified research gaps and future directions for research. The panelists voted to in favor of 31 recommendations. This report presents the consensus opinions of the participants that, in adults with T1D using AID systems, GLP-1RAs have the potential to (1) provide effective adjunct therapy and (2) improve glycemic and metabolic outcomes without increasing the risk of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis.

Background: Several clinical studies have shown that low blood glucose (BG) levels affect electroencephalogram (EEG) rhythms through the quantification of traditional indicators based on linear spectral analysis. Nonlinear measures used in the last decades to characterize the EEG in several physiopathological conditions have never been assessed in hypoglycemia. The present study investigates if properties of the EEG signal measured by nonlinear entropy-based algorithms are altered in a significant manner when a state of hypoglycemia is entered. Subjects and Methods: EEG was acquired from 19 patients with type 1 diabetes during a hyperinsulinemic–euglycemic–hypoglycemic clamp experiment. In parallel, BG was frequently monitored by the standard YSI glucose and lactate analyzer and used to identify two 1-h intervals corresponding to euglycemia and hypoglycemia, respectively. In each subject, the P3-C3 EEG derivation in the two glycemic intervals was assessed using the multiscale entropy (MSE) approach, obtaining measures of sample entropy (SampEn) at various temporal scales. The comparison of how signal irregularity measured by SampEn varies as the temporal scale increases in the two glycemic states provides information on how EEG complexity is affected by hypoglycemia. Results: For both glycemic states, the MSE analysis showed that SampEn increases at small time scales and then monotonically decreases as the time scale becomes larger. Comparing the two conditions, SampEn was higher in hypoglycemia only at medium time scales. Conclusions: A decrease in the complexity of EEG occurs when a state of hypoglycemia is entered, because of a degradation of the EEG long-range temporal correlations. Thanks to its ability to assess nonlinear dynamics of the EEG signal, the MSE approach seems to be a useful tool to complement information brought by standard linear indicators and provide new insights on how hypoglycemia affects brain functioning.