Glycemic Risk Index Profiles and Predictors Among Diverse Adults With Type 1 Diabetes
Authors' conclusion
Results support the use of the GRI, with GRI zones identifying those in need of clinical attention. Findings highlight the need to address health inequities. Treatment differences associated with the GRI also suggest behavioral and clinical interventions including starting individuals on CGM or automated insulin delivery systems.
Study context
- Population
- Diverse adults with T1D; mean age 41.4 (SD 14.5) years, 54.1% female, 41.5% Hispanic
- Participants
- 159 adults
- Exposure
- Five Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) zones
- Outcome
- Characteristics across the five GRI zones and variance in GRI explained
Methodological detailsblinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) over 14 days, Shapley value analysis, ROC analysis
- Blinded CGM over 14 days
- Shapley value analysis
- ROC analysis
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
- Mean glucose and variability, TIR, and % time in high and very high glucose ranges differed across the five GRI zones
- P values < .001
- Variance in GRI scores explained by sociodemographic and clinical variables
- 62.2%
- GRI score ≥84.5: greater likelihood of ketoacidosis over previous 6 months (AUC)
- 0.848
- GRI score ≥58.2: greater likelihood of severe hypoglycemia over previous 6 months (AUC)
- 0.729
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Original publication
Glycemic Risk Index Profiles and Predictors Among Diverse Adults With Type 1 Diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. Published 30 March 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →