Citations

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.

The development of automated insulin delivery systems has seen tremendous improvements from individual components to interoperable system combinations of devices and new drugs besides insulin. The components have become progressively smaller, more accurate, and more user friendly. This article summarizes the history of the artificial pancreas from the earliest concepts to fully functional systems to research into further improvements in the future. The authors include many of the developers of this technology who received research support from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases at various stages to develop these systems.

The development of automated insulin delivery systems has seen tremendous improvements from individual components to interoperable system combinations of devices and new drugs besides insulin. The components have become progressively smaller, more accurate, and more user friendly. This article summarizes the history of the artificial pancreas from the earliest concepts to fully functional systems to research into further improvements in the future. The authors include many of the developers of this technology who received research support from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases at various stages to develop these systems.

Diabetes Technology Society organized an expert consensus panel to develop metrics for research in the use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) in a hospital setting. The experts met virtually in small groups both before and after an April 13, 2023 virtual meeting of the entire panel. The goal of the panel was to develop consensus definitions in anticipation of greater use of CGMs in hospital settings in the future. Establishment of consensus definitions of inpatient analytical metrics will be easier to compare outcomes between studies. Panelists defined terms related to 10 dimensions of measurements related to the use of CGMs including (1) hospital hypoglycemia, (2) hospital hyperglycemia, (3) hospital time in range, (4) hospital glycemic variability, (5) hospital glycemia risk index, (6) accuracy of CGM devices and reference methods for CGMs in the hospital, (7) meaningful time blocks for hospital glycemic goals, (8) hospital CGM data sufficiency, (9) using CGM data for insulin dosing, and (10) miscellaneous factors. The panelists voted on 51 proposed recommendations. Based on the panel vote, 51 recommendations were classified as either strong (43) or mild (8). Additional research is needed on CGM performance in the hospital. This consensus report is intended to support that type of research intended to improve outcomes for hospitalized people with diabetes.

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.

This article is the work product of the Continuous Glucose Monitor and Automated Insulin Dosing Systems in the Hospital Consensus Guideline Panel, which was organized by Diabetes Technology Society and met virtually on April 23, 2020. The guideline panel consisted of 24 international experts in the use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and automated insulin dosing (AID) systems representing adult endocrinology, pediatric endocrinology, obstetrics and gynecology, advanced practice nursing, diabetes care and education, clinical chemistry, bioengineering, and product liability law. The panelists reviewed the medical literature pertaining to five topics: (1) continuation of home CGMs after hospitalization, (2) initiation of CGMs in the hospital, (3) continuation of AID systems in the hospital, (4) logistics and hands-on care of hospitalized patients using CGMs and AID systems, and (5) data management of CGMs and AID systems in the hospital. The panelists then developed three types of recommendations for each topic, including clinical practice (to use the technology optimally), research (to improve the safety and effectiveness of the technology), and hospital policies (to build an environment for facilitating use of these devices) for each of the five topics. The panelists voted on 78 proposed recommendations. Based on the panel vote, 77 recommendations were classified as either strong or mild. One recommendation failed to reach consensus. Additional research is needed on CGMs and AID systems in the hospital setting regarding device accuracy, practices for deployment, data management, and achievable outcomes. This guideline is intended to support these technologies for the management of hospitalized patients with diabetes.

In May 2017, the Diabetes Technology Society convened a panel of US experts on inpatient diabetes management to discuss the current and potential role of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy in the hospital. The panel (1) discussed evidence for current use of CSII in the hospital, (2) recommended contraindications for use in the hospital, and (3) recommended guidelines to maximize chances for safe use of CSII in the hospital. Panel members agreed that larger, prospective, randomized studies are needed to evaluate safety and efficacy of CSII use in the hospital. As CSII technology becomes more complex and its use increases, it is imperative that institutional protocols be in place to ensure safe use of this technology and safe transitions across care areas. Providers need to be cognizant that not all patients currently using CSII as an outpatient are appropriate candidates for continued use in the hospital. This consensus statement provides guidelines for practitioners who may encounter patients using this technology in the inpatient setting.

In June 2016, Diabetes Technology Society convened a panel of US experts in inpatient diabetes management to discuss the current and potential role of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the hospital. This discussion combined with a literature review was a follow-up to a meeting, which took place in May 2015. The panel reviewed evidence on use of CGM in 3 potential inpatient scenarios: (1) the intensive care unit (ICU), (2) non-ICU, and (3) transitioning outpatient CGM use into the hospital setting. Panel members agreed that data from limited studies and theoretical considerations suggested that use of CGM in the hospital had the potential to improve patient clinical outcomes, and in particular reduction of hypoglycemia. Panel members discussed barriers to widespread adoption of CGM, which patients would benefit most from use of this technology, and what type of outcome studies are needed to guide use of CGM in the inpatient setting.