Yenny Leal

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major long-term complication and the leading cause of morbidity and mortality among individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D), with a substantially higher prevalence compared to the general population and driven by multiple interrelated risk factors—underscoring the urgent need for accurate risk assessment. To support more tailored approaches to CVD prevention, recently, five discordant phenotypic risk profiles for CVD were identified in the general population in Europe with diverse relationship between body mass index and cardiometabolic biomarkers. Here, we show their applicability in 44,212 people with T1D. Improved glycemic control was linked to a decrease in CVD risk as people with T1D with lower glycated hemoglobin belonged to the baseline concordant cluster. This supports the contention that glycemic control in people with T1D is an integral part of lowering CVD risk.

Obesity is considered by many as a lifestyle choice rather than a chronic progressive disease. The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) SOPHIA (Stratification of Obesity Phenotypes to Optimize Future Obesity Therapy) project is part of a momentum shift aiming to provide better tools for the stratification of people with obesity according to disease risk and treatment response. One of the challenges to achieving these goals is that many clinical cohorts are siloed, limiting the potential of combined data for biomarker discovery. In SOPHIA, we have addressed this challenge by setting up a federated database building on open-source DataSHIELD technology. The database currently federates 16 cohorts that are accessible via a central gateway. The database is multi-modal, including research studies, clinical trials, and routine health data, and is accessed using the R statistical programming environment where statistical and machine learning analyses can be performed at a distance without any disclosure of patient-level data. We demonstrate the use of the database by providing a proof-of-concept analysis, performing a federated linear model of BMI and systolic blood pressure, pooling all data from 16 studies virtually without any analyst seeing individual patient-level data. This analysis provided similar point estimates compared to a meta-analysis of the 16 individual studies. Our approach provides a benchmark for reproducible, safe federated analyses across multiple study types provided by multiple stakeholders.

Problem-based learning is a teaching methodology that's is gaining attention for university students. In this work, we present a three years’ experience on the Biomedical Engineering studies, related to learning Statistics and Artificial Intelligence applied to Medicine. Up to five problems have been designed in several areas of Medicine, regarding the use of data for supporting decision making. The results are evaluated in terms of the academic outcomes and the students’ satisfactions. Challenges addressed include the progressively adaptation of the evaluation methodology, balancing team and individual assessment.

Background: The Patient Empowerment through Predictive Personalized Decision Support (PEPPER) system provides personalized bolus advice for people with type 1 diabetes. The system incorporates an adaptive insulin recommender system (based on case-based reasoning, an artificial intelligence methodology), coupled with a safety system, which includes predictive glucose alerts and alarms, predictive low-glucose suspend, personalized carbohydrate recommendations, and dynamic bolus insulin constraint. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the PEPPER system compared to a standard bolus calculator. Methods: This was an open-labeled multicenter randomized controlled crossover study. Following 4-week run-in, participants were randomized to PEPPER/Control or Control/PEPPER in a 1:1 ratio for 12 weeks. Participants then crossed over after a washout period. The primary end-point was percentage time in range (TIR, 3.9–10.0 mmol/L [70–180 mg/dL]). Secondary outcomes included glycemic variability, quality of life, and outcomes on the safety system and insulin recommender. Results: Fifty-four participants on multiple daily injections (MDI) or insulin pump completed the run-in period, making up the intention-to-treat analysis. Median (interquartile range) age was 41.5 (32.3–49.8) years, diabetes duration 21.0 (11.5–26.0) years, and HbA1c 61.0 (58.0–66.1) mmol/mol. No significant difference was observed for percentage TIR between the PEPPER and Control groups (62.5 [52.1–67.8] % vs. 58.4 [49.6–64.3] %, respectively, P = 0.27). For quality of life, participants reported higher perceived hypoglycemia with the PEPPER system despite no objective difference in time spent in hypoglycemia. Conclusions: The PEPPER system was safe, but did not change glycemic outcomes, compared to control. There is wide scope for integrating PEPPER into routine diabetes management for pump and MDI users. Further studies are required to confirm overall effectiveness. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03849755

Delivering insulin in type 1 diabetes is a challenging, and potentially risky, activity; hence the importance of including safety measures as part of any insulin dosing or recommender system. This work presents and clinically evaluates a modular safety system that is part of an intelligent insulin dose recommender platform developed within the EU-funded PEPPER project. The proposed safety system is composed of four modules which use a novel glucose forecasting algorithm. These modules are predictive glucose alerts and alarms; a predictive low-glucose basal insulin suspension module; an advanced rescue carbohydrate recommender for resolving hypoglycemia; and a personalized safety constraint applied to insulin recommendations. The technical feasibility of the proposed safety system was evaluated in a pilot study including eight adult subjects with type 1 diabetes on multiple daily injections over a duration of six weeks. Glycemic control and safety system functioning were compared between the two-weeks run-in period and the end point at eight weeks. A standard insulin bolus calculator was employed to recommend insulin doses. Overall, glycemic control improved over the evaluated period. In particular, percentage time in the hypoglycemia range (P = .02). This was associated with a significant increase in percentage time in target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/l) from 52.8% (38.3-61.5) to 61.3% (47.5-71.7) (P = .03). There was also a reduction in number of carbohydrate recommendations. A safety system for an insulin dose recommender has been proven to be a viable solution to reduce the number of adverse events associated to glucose control in type 1 diabetes.

Context Closed-loop control (CLC) for the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) is a novel method for optimizing glucose control, and strategies for individualized implementation are being developed. Objective To analyze glycemic control in an overnight CLC system designed to “reset” the patient to near-normal glycemic targets every morning. Design Randomized, crossover, multicenter clinical trial. Participants Forty-four subjects with T1D requiring insulin pump therapy. Intervention Sensor-augmented pump therapy (SAP) at home vs 5 nights of CLC (active from 23:00 to 07:00) in a supervised outpatient setting (research house or hotel), with a substudy of 5 nights of CLC subsequently at home. Main Outcome Measure The percentage of time spent in the target range (70 to 180 mg/dL measured using a continuous glucose monitor). Results Forty subjects (age, 45.5 ± 9.5 years; hemoglobin A1c, 7.4% ± 0.8%) completed the study. The time in the target range (70 to 180 mg/dL) significantly improved in CLC vs SAP over 24 hours (78.3% vs 71.4%; P = 0.003) and overnight (85.7% vs 67.6%; P < 0.001). The time spent in a hypoglycemic range (P = 0.002) and overnight (0.9% vs 3.2%; P < 0.001). The mean glucose level at 07:00 was lower with CLC than with SAP (123.7 vs 145.3 mg/dL; P < 0.001). The substudy at home, involving 10 T1D subjects, showed similar trends with an increased time in target (70 to 180 mg/dL) overnight (75.2% vs 62.2%; P = 0.07) and decreased time spent in the hypoglycemic range (P = 0.03). Conclusion Overnight-only CLC increased the time in the target range over 24 hours and decreased the time in hypoglycemic range over 24 hours in a supervised outpatient setting. A pilot extension study at home showed a similar nonsignificant trend.

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) are prone to inaccuracy due to time lags, sensor drift, calibration errors, and measurement noise. The aim of this study is to derive the model of the error of the second generation Medtronic Paradigm Veo Enlite (ENL) sensor and compare it with the Dexcom SEVEN PLUS (7P), G4 PLATINUM (G4P), and advanced G4 for Artificial Pancreas studies (G4AP) systems. An enhanced methodology to a previously employed technique was utilized to dissect the sensor error into several components. The dataset used included 37 inpatient sessions in 10 subjects with type 1 diabetes (T1D), in which CGMs were worn in parallel and blood glucose (BG) samples were analyzed every 15 ± 5 min Calibration error and sensor drift of the ENL sensor was best described by a linear relationship related to the gain and offset. The mean time lag estimated by the model is 9.4 ± 6.5 min. The overall average mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of the ENL sensor was 11.68 ± 5.07% Calibration error had the highest contribution to total error in the ENL sensor. This was also reported in the 7P, G4P, and G4AP. The model of the ENL sensor error will be useful to test the in silico performance of CGM-based applications, i.e., the artificial pancreas, employing this kind of sensor.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of children with type 1 diabetes and their parents taking part in an artificial pancreas (AP) clinical trial during a 7-day summer camp. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A semistructured interview, composed of 14 questions based on the Technology Acceptance Model, was conducted at the end of the clinical trial. Participants also completed the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ, parent version) and the AP Acceptance Questionnaire. RESULTS: Thirty children, aged 5–9 years, and their parents completed the study. A content analysis of the interviews showed that parents were focused on understanding the mechanisms, risks, and benefits of the new device, whereas the children were focused on the novelty of the new system. The parents’ main concerns about adopting the new system seemed related to the quality of glucose control. The mean scores of DTSQ subscales indicated general parents’ satisfaction (44.24 ± 5.99, range 32–53) and trustful views of diabetes control provided by the new system (7.8 ± 2.2, range 3–12). The AP Acceptance Questionnaire revealed that most parents considered the AP easy to use (70.5%), intended to use it long term (94.0%), and felt that it was apt to improve glucose control (67.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Participants manifested a positive attitude toward the AP. Further studies are required to explore participants’ perceptions early in the AP development to individualize the new treatment as much as possible, and to tailor it to respond to their needs and values.