Glycemic Variability Patterns Strongly Correlate With Partial Remission Status in Children With Newly Diagnosed Type 1 Diabetes

Olivier G Pollé, Antoine Delfosse, Manon Martin, Jacques Louis, Inge Gies, Marieke den Brinker, Nicole Seret, Marie-Christine Lebrethon, Thierry Mouraux, Laurent Gatto, Philippe A Lysy, DIATAG Working Group, Philippe A Lysy, Olivier G Pollé, Antoine Delfosse, Paola Gallo, Thierry Barrea, Gaetan De Valensart, Chloé Brunelle, Joachim Docquir, Jacques Louis, Nicolas Oberweis, Inge Gies, Willem Staels, Jesse Vanbesien, Christel Van den Brande, Marieke den Brinker, Mieke Van Eyde, Nicole Seret, Olimpia Chivu, Sophie Lambert, Marie-Christinne Lebrethon, Anne-Simone Parent, Catherine Sondag, Dominique Beckers, Thierry Mouraux, Laure Boutsen, Olivier G Pollé, Antoine Delfosse, Manon Martin, Jacques Louis, Inge Gies, Marieke den Brinker, Nicole Seret, Marie-Christine Lebrethon, Thierry Mouraux, Laurent Gatto, Philippe A Lysy, DIATAG Working Group, Philippe A Lysy, Olivier G Pollé, Antoine Delfosse, Paola Gallo, Thierry Barrea, Gaetan De Valensart, Chloé Brunelle, Joachim Docquir, Jacques Louis, Nicolas Oberweis, Inge Gies, Willem Staels, Jesse Vanbesien, Christel Van den Brande, Marieke den Brinker, Mieke Van Eyde, Nicole Seret, Olimpia Chivu, Sophie Lambert, Marie-Christinne Lebrethon, Anne-Simone Parent, Catherine Sondag, Dominique Beckers, Thierry Mouraux, Laure Boutsen

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate whether indexes of glycemic variability may overcome residual β-cell secretion estimates in the longitudinal evaluation of partial remission in a cohort of pediatric patients with new-onset type 1 diabetes.

Research design and methods: Values of residual β-cell secretion estimates, clinical parameters (e.g., HbA1c or insulin daily dose), and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) from 78 pediatric patients with new-onset type 1 diabetes were longitudinally collected during 1 year and cross-sectionally compared. Circadian patterns of CGM metrics were characterized and correlated to remission status using an adjusted mixed-effects model. Patients were clustered based on 46 CGM metrics and clinical parameters and compared using nonparametric ANOVA.

Results: Study participants had a mean (± SD) age of 10.4 (± 3.6) years at diabetes onset, and 65% underwent partial remission at 3 months. β-Cell residual secretion estimates demonstrated weak-to-moderate correlations with clinical parameters and CGM metrics (r2 = 0.05-0.25; P < 0.05). However, CGM metrics strongly correlated with clinical parameters (r2 >0.52; P < 0.05) and were sufficient to distinguish remitters from nonremitters. Also, CGM metrics from remitters displayed specific early morning circadian patterns characterized by increased glycemic stability across days (within 63-140 mg/dL range) and decreased rate of grade II hypoglycemia (P < 0.0001) compared with nonremitters. Thorough CGM analysis allowed the identification of four novel glucotypes (P < 0.001) that segregate patients into subgroups and mirror the evolution of remission after diabetes onset.

Conclusions: In our pediatric cohort, combination of CGM metrics and clinical parameters unraveled key clinical milestones of glucose homeostasis and remission status during the first year of type 1 diabetes.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04007809.

© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Relations among β-cell residual secretion, routine clinical parameters of glycemic control, and CGM metrics during the first year of type 1 diabetes. Residual β-cell secretion was evaluated at 3 and 12 months after diagnosis. Routine clinical parameters and CGM metrics were obtained at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after diagnosis. Correlation analyses were performed on all data. AC and GI represent linear regression with 95% CI bands (shaded zone) between endogenous residual insulin secretion (i.e., CPEPEST, CPEPBASAL, and CPEPSTIM) and HbA1c (A), daily insulin dose (B), IDAA1c score (C), time >180 mg/dL (G), CV (H), and time between 70 and 180 mg/dL (I). DF represent linear regression with 95% CI bands (shaded zone) between CGM metrics (i.e., glycemia <70 mg/dL, between 63 and 140 mg/dL, between 70 and 180 mg/dL, and >180 mg/dL and CV) and HbA1c (D), insulin daily dose (E), and IDAA1c score (F). Regression coefficients (r2) are shown according to the secretion method (A–C, G–I) and CGM metrics (F–H). The level of significance of the correlations is represented after the r2 value as follows: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. Significant regression coefficients are indicated in boldface.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Daily patterns of time spent in defined glycemic ranges during the first year of type 1 diabetes regarding the remission status. Routine clinical parameters and CGM metrics were obtained at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after diagnosis. Lines represent the mean percentage of time spent 180 mg/dL (red). Error bars represent the SEs. The inset panel represents the daily variation in the amplitude of differences for values 0% [dashed black line] defining higher values in remitters, percentage P < 0.05, and gray dots represent P > 0.5. No-rem, nonremitters; Rem, remitters.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Illustration and characterization of glycemic clusters identified by unsupervised hierarchical clustering on CGM metrics and clinical data during the first year of diabetes. Routine clinical parameters and CGM metrics were obtained at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after diagnosis. A: Repartition of the clustering groups across the principal component analysis data. The empirical distributions of the patients across each group are represented by isoprobability contours of kernel densities at 25th, 50th, 75th, and 95th percentiles. The medoid of each group is represented by a diamond. B: Circadian evolution of CV (%) according to the clustering groups. The dashed line represents the threshold of 36%. C: Daily patterns of time spent in defined glycemic ranges <54 mg/dL (dark blue), <70 mg/dL (light blue), between 63 and 140 mg/dL (black), between 70 and 180 mg/dL (green), and >180 mg/dL (red). Error bars represent the SEs. Gray horizontal bars represent nighttime, and orange horizontal bars represent daytime.

References

    1. van Belle TL, Coppieters KT, von Herrath MG. Type 1 diabetes: etiology, immunology, and therapeutic strategies. Physiol Rev 2011;91:79–118
    1. Nielens N, Pollé O, Robert A, Lysy PA. Integration of routine parameters of glycemic variability in a simple screening method for partial remission in children with type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Res 2018;2018:5936360.
    1. Mortensen HB, Hougaard P, Swift P, et al. .; Hvidoere Study Group on Childhood Diabetes . New definition for the partial remission period in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009;32:1384–1390
    1. Palmer JP, Fleming GA, Greenbaum CJ, et al. . C-peptide is the appropriate outcome measure for type 1 diabetes clinical trials to preserve beta-cell function: report of an ADA workshop, 21-22 October 2001. Diabetes 2004;53:250–264
    1. Atkinson MA, Roep BO, Posgai A, Wheeler DCS, Peakman M. The challenge of modulating β-cell autoimmunity in type 1 diabetes. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2019;7:52–64
    1. Linsley PS, Greenbaum CJ, Nepom GT. Uncovering pathways to personalized therapies in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes 2021;70:831–841
    1. Rickels MR, Evans-Molina C, Bahnson HT, et al. .; T1D Exchange β-Cell Function Study Group . High residual C-peptide likely contributes to glycemic control in type 1 diabetes. J Clin Invest 2020;130:1850–1862
    1. Yu MG, Keenan HA, Shah HS, et al. . Residual β cell function and monogenic variants in long-duration type 1 diabetes patients. J Clin Invest 2019;129:3252–3263
    1. Oram RA, Sims EK, Evans-Molina C. Beta cells in type 1 diabetes: mass and function; sleeping or dead? Diabetologia 2019;62:567–577
    1. Gorst C, Kwok CS, Aslam S, et al. . Long-term glycemic variability and risk of adverse outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 2015;38:2354–2369
    1. Kahkoska AR, Adair LA, Aiello AE, et al. . Identification of clinically relevant dysglycemia phenotypes based on continuous glucose monitoring data from youth with type 1 diabetes and elevated hemoglobin A1c. Pediatr Diabetes 2019;20:556–566
    1. Battaglia M, Ahmed S, Anderson MS, et al. . Introducing the endotype concept to address the challenge of disease heterogeneity in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2020;43:5–12
    1. Mayer-Davis EJ, Kahkoska AR, Jefferies C, et al. . ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2018: definition, epidemiology, and classification of diabetes in children and adolescents. Pediatr Diabetes 2018;19(Suppl. 27):7–19
    1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. .; REDCap Consortium . The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform 2019;95:103208.
    1. Philippe MF, Benabadji S, Barbot-Trystram L, Vadrot D, Boitard C, Larger E. Pancreatic volume and endocrine and exocrine functions in patients with diabetes. Pancreas 2011;40:359–363
    1. Wentworth JM, Bediaga NG, Giles LC, et al. .; Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Study Group; Immune Tolerance Network Study Group . Beta cell function in type 1 diabetes determined from clinical and fasting biochemical variables. Diabetologia 2019;62:33–40
    1. Vigers T, Chan CL, Snell-Bergeon J, et al. . cgmanalysis: an R package for descriptive analysis of continuous glucose monitor data. PLoS One 2019;14:e0216851.
    1. Broll S, Urbanek J, Buchanan D, et al. . Interpreting blood GLUcose data with R package iglu. PLoS One 2021;16:e0248560.
    1. Fabris C, Patek SD, Breton MD. Are risk indices derived from CGM interchangeable with SMBG-based indices? J Diabetes Sci Technol 2015;10:50–59
    1. Danne T, Nimri R, Battelino T, et al. . International consensus on use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care 2017;40:1631–1640
    1. Rodbard D. New and improved methods to characterize glycemic variability using continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther 2009;11:551–565
    1. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 2015;67:1–48
    1. Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB. lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J Stat Softw 2017;82:1–26
    1. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol 1995;57:289–300
    1. Josse J, Husson F. missMDA: a package for handling missing values in multivariate data analysis. J Stat Softw 2016;70:1–31
    1. Pecheur A, Barrea T, Vandooren V, Beauloye V, Robert A, Lysy PA. Characteristics and determinants of partial remission in children with type 1 diabetes using the insulin-dose-adjusted A1c definition. J Diabetes Res. 2014;2014:851378.
    1. Monnier L, Colette C, Wojtusciszyn A, et al. . Toward defining the threshold between low and high glucose variability in diabetes. Diabetes Care 2017;40:832–838
    1. Ruan Y, Willemsen RH, Wilinska ME, Tauschmann M, Dunger DB, Hovorka R. Mixed-meal tolerance test to assess residual beta-cell secretion: beyond the area-under-curve of plasma C-peptide concentration. Pediatr Diabetes 2019;20:282–285
    1. Buckingham B, Cheng P, Beck RW, et al. .; Diabetes Research in Children Network (DirecNet) and Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Study Groups . CGM-measured glucose values have a strong correlation with C-peptide, HbA1c and IDAAC, but do poorly in predicting C-peptide levels in the two years following onset of diabetes. Diabetologia 2015;58:1167–1174
    1. Hao W, Gitelman S, DiMeglio LA, Boulware D; Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Study Group . Fall in C-peptide during first 4 years from diagnosis of type 1 diabetes: Variable relation to age, HbA1c, and insulin dose. Diabetes Care 2016;39:1664–1670
    1. Carr ALJ, Oram RA, Marren SM, McDonald TJ, Narendran P, Andrews RC. Measurement of peak C-peptide at diagnosis informs glycemic control but not hypoglycemia in adults with type 1 diabetes. J Endocr Soc 2021;5:bvab127.
    1. Chmelova H, Cohrs CM, Chouinard JA, et al. . Distinct roles of β-cell mass and function during type 1 diabetes onset and remission. Diabetes 2015;64:2148–2160
    1. Addala A, Zaharieva DP, Gu AJ, et al. . Clinically serious hypoglycemia is rare and not associated with time-in-range in youth with new-onset type 1 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2021;106:3239–3247

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner