Ahn, David

Sharing research code in an open access version-controlled repository offers significant benefits for both science as a whole and for individual researchers. In this article, we focus on this practice, which is fully aligned with the NIH’s Gold Standard Science (GSS) program as well as FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) and TRUST (transparency, responsibility, user focus, sustainability, technology) principles. Gold Standard Science supports open science by emphasizing transparency, reproducibility, and the use of best practices that enable others to verify and extend research. Pairing a research article’s cited data snapshot with a versioned, environment-specific code release, deposited in a companion code repository, ensures that, upon submission to a medical journal, readers and reviewers can directly verify results. An executable and updatable companion code repository complements, rather than replaces, established research data repositories. When code underlying medical research results is made openly available, then other scientists can inspect, run, and validate analyses. These activities enhance reproducibility, which is a core aim of GSS. Shared code also facilitates collaborative innovation by allowing researchers to extend the utility of the code to new datasets and applications. For researchers, code sharing can increase visibility, credibility, and citation impact. Demonstrating transparency through shared executable and updatable code builds trust with journal readers, peer reviewers, funders, and peers. Shared code in an open access repository signals adherence to high standards of scientific integrity and attracts opportunities for collaboration. A researcher who shares code receives recognition as a leader in reproducible, trustworthy research consistent with NIH’s GSS principles.

Objective: To evaluate the function and safety of the SteadiSet™ infusion set over a continuous 7-day wear period in adults with type 1 diabetes. Research Design and Methods: Participants used a SteadiSet infusion set with a t:slim X2™ insulin pump with Control-IQ™ technology, and either insulin aspart or insulin lispro, for a target of 7 days for 12 consecutive wear periods. Each set removed before 7 days was adjudicated by an independent committee to assess the cause of early removal and to determine whether criteria for primary or key secondary endpoints were met. Results: There were 260 participants who inserted 3028 infusion sets. For the primary endpoint, the Kaplan–Meier 7-day survival estimate was 95% (95% CI 94% to 96%). For the key secondary endpoint, which expanded the reasons for a failed infusion set, the Kaplan–Meier 7-day survival estimate was 84% (95% CI 82% to 86%). For both endpoints, the P value was <0.001 compared with a prespecified survival rate of 75%. Time-in-range 70–180 mg/dL (TIR) increased through day 3 of set wear and then decreased through day 7, with the average TIR being 70.6% over the entire wear period across all infusion sets, including those that failed. An increase in total daily insulin was observed from day 4 through day 7. Conclusions: The 7-day survival of the SteadiSet infusion set was very high for the primary endpoint and at an acceptable level with respect to early removal for any reason related to the device.

OBJECTIVE The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) requires a low C-peptide level for insulin pump coverage unless the individual is β-cell autoantibody positive, which precludes coverage of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems for many people with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In the Randomized Trial Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Control-IQ+ Technology in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Using Basal-Bolus Insulin Therapy study evaluating the t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ+ technology, adults with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes were categorized into high C-peptide (n = 195) and low C-peptide (n = 59) groups based on CMS criteria. RESULTS In the AID group, mean HbA1c decreased from baseline by 0.8%, which was significantly greater than in the control group with both high (P &lt; 0.001) and low (P = 0.02) C-peptide levels. Results were similar in participants ≥65 years old. CONCLUSIONS The benefit of AID is present with high and low C-peptide levels. Thus, requiring a low C-peptide level as a prerequisite for AID therapy is not warranted.

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.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus has rapidly involved the entire world and exposed the pressing need for collaboration between public health and other stakeholders from the clinical, scientific, regulatory, pharmaceutical, and medical device and technology communities. To discuss how to best protect people with diabetes from serious outcomes from COVID-19, Diabetes Technology Society, in collaboration with Sansum Diabetes Research Institute, hosted the “International COVID-19 and Diabetes Virtual Summit” on August 26-27, 2020. This unique, unprecedented real-time conference brought together physicians, scientists, government officials, regulatory experts, industry representatives, and people with diabetes from six continents to review and analyze relationships between COVID-19 and diabetes. Over 800 attendees logged in. The summit consisted of five sessions: (I) Keynotes, (II) Preparedness, (III) Response, (IV) Recovery, and (V) Surveillance; eight parts: (A) Background, (B) Resilience, (C) Outpatient Care, (D) Inpatient Care, (E) Resources, (F) High-Risk Groups, (G) Regulation, and (H) The Future; and 24 sections: (1) Historic Pandemics and Impact on Society, (2) Pathophysiology/Risk Factors for COVID-19, (3) Social Determinants of COVID-19, (4) Preparing for the Future, (5) Medications and Vaccines, (6) Psychology of Patients and Caregivers, (7) Outpatient Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus and Non-Pharmacologic Intervention, (8) Technology and Telehealth for Diabetes Outpatients, (9) Technology for Inpatients, (10) Management of Diabetes Inpatients with COVID-19, (11) Ethics, (12) Accuracy of Diagnostic Tests, (13) Children, (14) Pregnancy, (15) Economics of Care for COVID-19, (16) Role of Industry, (17) Protection of Healthcare Workers, (18) People with Diabetes, (19) International Responses to COVID-19, (20) Government Policy, (21) Regulation of Tests and Treatments, (22) Digital Health Technology, (23) Big Data Statistics, and 24) Patient Surveillance and Privacy. The two keynote speeches were entitled (1) COVID-19 and Diabetes—Meeting the Challenge and (2) Knowledge Gaps and Research Opportunities for Diabetes and COVID-19. While there was an emphasis on diabetes and its interactions with COVID-19, the panelists also discussed the COVID-19 pandemic in general. The meeting generated many novel ideas for collaboration between experts in medicine, science, government, and industry to develop new technologies and disease treatment paradigms to fight this global pandemic.