Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The objective of the Hypoglycaemia REdefining SOLutions for better liVES (Hypo-RESOLVE) project is to use a dataset of pooled clinical trials across pharmaceutical and device companies in people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes to examine factors associated with incident hypoglycaemia events and to quantify the prediction of these events. METHODS: Data from 90 trials with 46,254 participants were pooled. Analyses were done for type 1 and type 2 diabetes separately. Poisson mixed models, adjusted for age, sex, diabetes duration and trial identifier were fitted to assess the association of clinical variables with hypoglycaemia event counts. Tree-based gradient-boosting algorithms (XGBoost) were fitted using training data and their predictive performance in terms of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) evaluated on test data. Baseline models including age, sex and diabetes duration were compared with models that further included a score of hypoglycaemia in the first 6 weeks from study entry, and full models that included further clinical variables. The relative predictive importance of each covariate was assessed using XGBoost's importance procedure. Prediction across the entire trial duration for each trial (mean of 34.8 weeks for type 1 diabetes and 25.3 weeks for type 2 diabetes) was assessed. RESULTS: For both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, variables associated with more frequent hypoglycaemia included female sex, white ethnicity, longer diabetes duration, treatment with human as opposed to analogue-only insulin, higher glucose variability, higher score for hypoglycaemia across the 6 week baseline period, lower BP, lower lipid levels and treatment with psychoactive drugs. Prediction of any hypoglycaemia event of any severity was greater than prediction of hypoglycaemia requiring assistance (level 3 hypoglycaemia), for which events were sparser. For prediction of level 1 or worse hypoglycaemia during the whole follow-up period, the AUC was 0.835 (95% CI 0.826, 0.844) in type 1 diabetes and 0.840 (95% CI 0.831, 0.848) in type 2 diabetes. For level 3 hypoglycaemia, the AUC was lower at 0.689 (95% CI 0.667, 0.712) for type 1 diabetes and 0.705 (95% CI 0.662, 0.748) for type 2 diabetes. Compared with the baseline models, almost all the improvement in prediction could be captured by the individual's hypoglycaemia history, glucose variability and blood glucose over a 6 week baseline period. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Although hypoglycaemia rates show large variation according to sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and treatment history, looking at a 6 week period of hypoglycaemia events and glucose measurements predicts future hypoglycaemia risk.