Rickels, Michael R.

Background. Pancreas transplantation (PT), historically limited to patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D), is currently performed successfully in selected patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, contemporary practice patterns and eligibility criteria for PT in T2D remain incompletely characterized. Methods. The International Pancreas and Islet Transplant Association Pancreas Transplant Interest Group developed an electronic survey to assess center-level approaches to patient phenotyping, candidacy, and peri- and posttransplant management for PT in patients with T2D. The survey was distributed to international transplant professionals during an International Pancreas and Islet Transplant Association Pre-Congress meeting on June 15, 2025. Results. Thirty-seven participants completed the survey. Most respondents’ programs offer PT for T2D only when a kidney transplant is also indicated. Fewer respondents’ programs also offer PT alone (10%), evaluate T2D candidates on a case-by-case basis (3%), or do not offer PT to patients with T2D (10%). Total daily insulin requirement and body mass index (BMI) were the most selected factors in determining eligibility. Considerable variability existed in metabolic thresholds: 62% of programs reported no C-peptide cutoff, whereas nearly half required a BMI of <30 kg/m 2 for C-peptide-positive candidates. Respondents frequently recommend weight-optimization strategies, including lifestyle modification, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, and bariatric surgery for candidates exceeding acceptable BMI thresholds. Surgical technique, induction, and maintenance immunosuppression and early posttransplant glycemic management were largely uniform between T2D and T1D recipients. Conclusions. International practice reflects broad but heterogeneous adoption of PT for T2D, with most participants restricting its use to candidates requiring kidney transplantation and emphasizing integrated clinical phenotyping approaches.

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.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Cognition is reduced at low and high glucose, reflecting cognitive vulnerability to glucose (CVG) fluctuations. The impact of glucose fluctuations on the aging brain remains unclear. We examined whether CVG is associated with plasma biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology and neurodegeneration. METHODS Participants included N = 114 adults with type 1 diabetes assessed for processing speed and sustained attention using ecological momentary assessment (EMA) combined with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). We characterized associations between CVG and amyloid beta (Aβ) 42/40, phosphorylated tau (p‐tau) 181 and 217, neurofilament light chain, and glial fibrillary acidic protein. RESULTS CVG was associated with all plasma biomarkers, except Aβ 42/40. CVG for sustained attention exhibited strong associations with p‐tau biomarkers that persisted across covariate specifications. DISCUSSION CVG may be a useful digital phenotype of AD. It remains unclear whether CVG contributes to versus arises from neurodegeneration. We consider possible mechanisms linking cognitive vulnerability and long‐term glucose variability to the development of neuropathology. Highlights Cognitive vulnerability to glucose (CVG) may be a useful digital phenotype of neurodegeneration. We used cognitive ecological momentary assessment and continuous glucose monitoring to investigate CVG's associations with plasma biomarkers. Associations of CVG for sustained attention and phosphorylated tau 181 remained significant across covariates. We discuss possible mechanisms relating glucose variability, cognition, and neurodegeneration.

Objective: To evaluate glycemic outcomes in the Wireless Innovation for Seniors with Diabetes Mellitus (WISDM) randomized clinical trial (RCT) participants during an observational extension phase. Research Design and Methods: WISDM RCT was a 26-week RCT comparing continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in 203 adults aged ≥60 years with type 1 diabetes. Of the 198 participants who completed the RCT, 100 (98%) CGM group participants continued CGM (CGM-CGM cohort) and 94 (98%) BGM group participants initiated CGM (BGM-CGM cohort) for an additional 26 weeks. Results: CGM was used a median of >90% of the time at 52 weeks in both cohorts. In the CGM-CGM cohort, median time <70 mg/dL decreased from 5.0% at baseline to 2.6% at 26 weeks and remained stable with a median of 2.8% at 52 weeks ( P < 0.001 baseline to 52 weeks). Participants spent more time in range 70–180 mg/dL (TIR) (mean 56% vs. 64%; P < 0.001) and had lower hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (mean 7.6% [59 mmol/mol] vs. 7.4% [57 mmol/mol]; P = 0.01) from baseline to 52 weeks. In BGM-CGM, from 26 to 52 weeks median time <70 mg/dL decreased from 3.9% to 1.9% ( P < 0.001), TIR increased from 56% to 60% ( P = 0.006) and HbA1c decreased from 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) to 7.3% (57 mmol/mol) ( P = 0.025). In BGM-CGM, a severe hypoglycemic event was reported for nine participants while using BGM during the RCT and for two participants during the extension phase with CGM ( P = 0.02). Conclusions: CGM use reduced hypoglycemia without increasing hyperglycemia in older adults with type 1 diabetes. These data provide further evidence for fully integrating CGM into clinical practice. Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03240432)