Factors associated with progression from level 1 to level 2 sensor‐detected hypoglycaemia in people with type 1 and insulin‐treated type 2 diabetes: a post hoc analysis from the Hypo‐METRIC Study

Aims We investigated the proportion of sensor-detected hypoglycaemic (SDH) events progressing to level 2, and associated variables. Materials and Methods We used data from Hypo-METRICS, which recruited people with type 1 (pwT1D) and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (pwT2D) with ≥ 1 hypoglycaemic event in preceding 3 months, wearing blinded continuous glucose monitoring devices (CGM), additional to usual monitoring modality, and FitBits for 10 weeks. We defined: L1: SDH < 3.9 mmol/L for ≥ 15 min but ≥ 3.0 mmol/L; L2: SDH < 3.9 mmol/L with ≥ 15 min of sensor glucose < 3.0 mmol/L; L2 ratio = L2/(L1 + L2), restricted to participants with both event types during the study period. Associations of selected variables on L2 ratio was assessed using beta regression and purposeful variable selection. Results We analysed 23 768 SDH events from 212 pwT1D and 213 pwT2D. PwT1D were predominantly female (53% vs. 42% in T2D, p = 0.023) and younger (median age 49 vs. 62 years, p < 0.001), with a higher L2 ratio (16% vs. 14%, p = 0.03). Coefficient of variation (CV), OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 1.06–1.09 (p < 0.001), and mean sensor glucose, OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.08–1.18 (p < 0.001) were the principal predictors in T1D and T2D respectively; mean L1-SDH duration, weekly L1-SDH frequency, personal CGM usage, impaired awareness were not. Progression was higher during sleep than wakefulness (21% vs. 11%, p < 0.001); L2 ratios during sleep did not differ by awareness status. Conclusions Approximately one sixth of SDH events progressed to L2, with a higher proportion in T1D than T2D. The principal determinants were CV in T1D and mean glucose in T2D. Awareness status was not associated with progression risk during sleep.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York)
Published
2026-10-01
Primary Topic
Diabetes Management and Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Factors associated with progression from level 1 to level 2 sensor‐detected hypoglycaemia in people with type 1 and insulin‐treated type 2 diabetes: a post hoc analysis from the Hypo‐METRIC Study

Frans Pouwer, E. Renard, R.J. McCrimmon, Gilberte Martine‐Edith et al.
White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York)
Diabetes Management and Research
article

Factors associated with progression from level 1 to level 2 sensor‐detected hypoglycaemia in people with type 1 and insulin‐treated type 2 diabetes: a post hoc analysis from the Hypo‐METRIC Study

Frans Pouwer, E. Renard, R.J. McCrimmon, Gilberte Martine‐Edith, J. Speight, Vaios Koutroukas, Aikaterina Tziannou, M. L. Evans, JK Mader, S. Heller, U. Pedersen-Bjergaard, S. A. Amiel, J. Brøsen, B. E. de Galan, P. Choudhary, J.J.C. Thomas
article en

Abstract

Aims We investigated the proportion of sensor-detected hypoglycaemic (SDH) events progressing to level 2, and associated variables. Materials and Methods We used data from Hypo-METRICS, which recruited people with type 1 (pwT1D) and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (pwT2D) with ≥ 1 hypoglycaemic event in preceding 3 months, wearing blinded continuous glucose monitoring devices (CGM), additional to usual monitoring modality, and FitBits for 10 weeks. We defined: L1: SDH < 3.9 mmol/L for ≥ 15 min but ≥ 3.0 mmol/L; L2: SDH < 3.9 mmol/L with ≥ 15 min of sensor glucose < 3.0 mmol/L; L2 ratio = L2/(L1 + L2), restricted to participants with both event types during the study period. Associations of selected variables on L2 ratio was assessed using beta regression and purposeful variable selection. Results We analysed 23 768 SDH events from 212 pwT1D and 213 pwT2D. PwT1D were predominantly female (53% vs. 42% in T2D, p = 0.023) and younger (median age 49 vs. 62 years, p < 0.001), with a higher L2 ratio (16% vs. 14%, p = 0.03). Coefficient of variation (CV), OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 1.06–1.09 (p < 0.001), and mean sensor glucose, OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.08–1.18 (p < 0.001) were the principal predictors in T1D and T2D respectively; mean L1-SDH duration, weekly L1-SDH frequency, personal CGM usage, impaired awareness were not. Progression was higher during sleep than wakefulness (21% vs. 11%, p < 0.001); L2 ratios during sleep did not differ by awareness status. Conclusions Approximately one sixth of SDH events progressed to L2, with a higher proportion in T1D than T2D. The principal determinants were CV in T1D and mean glucose in T2D. Awareness status was not associated with progression risk during sleep.

White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York)
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montpellier (FR)
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International, Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, University of Dundee, European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Department of Health and Social Care, European Commission, Radboud Universiteit, Novo Nordisk, Université de Montpellier, Abbott Diabetes Care, Menzies Centre for Australian Studies, King's College London, University of London
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 30%
Diabetes Management and Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.