Cyril P Landstra1, Axel Andres2, Mikael Chetboun3, Caterina Conte4, Yvonne Kelly5, Thierry Berney2, Eelco J P de Koning1, Lorenzo Piemonti4, Peter G Stock5, François Pattou3, Marie-Christine Vantyghem6, Melena D Bellin7, Michael R Rickels8. 1. Division of Endocrinology & Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 2. Divison of Transplantation and Visceral Surgery, Department of Surgery, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland. 3. Department of General and Endocrine Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille, and Inserm, Translational Research for Diabetes, Université de Lille, Lille, France. 4. Diabetes Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, and Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. 5. Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 6. Department of Endocrinology, Diabetology and Metabolism, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille, and Inserm, Translational Research for Diabetes, Université de Lille, Lille, France. 7. Division of Endocrinology, Department of Pediatrics, and the Schulze Diabetes Institute, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 8. Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism, Department of Medicine, and Institute for Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: The Igls criteria were developed to provide a consensus definition for outcomes of β-cell replacement therapy in the treatment of diabetes during a January 2017 workshop sponsored by the International Pancreas & Islet Transplant Association (IPITA) and the European Pancreas & Islet Transplant Association. In July 2019, a symposium at the 17th IPITA World Congress was held to examine the Igls criteria after 2 years in clinical practice, including validation against continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived glucose targets, and to propose future refinements that would allow for comparison of outcomes with artificial pancreas system approaches. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Utilization of the criteria in various clinical and research settings was illustrated by population as well as individual outcome data of 4 islet and/or pancreas transplant centers. Validation against CGM metrics was conducted in 55 islet transplant recipients followed-up to 10 years from a fifth center. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The Igls criteria provided meaningful clinical assessment on an individual patient and treatment group level, allowing for comparison both within and between different β-cell replacement modalities. Important limitations include the need to account for changes in insulin requirements and C-peptide levels relative to baseline. In islet transplant recipients, CGM glucose time in range improved with each category of increasing β-cell graft function. CONCLUSIONS: Future Igls 2.0 criteria should consider absolute rather than relative levels of insulin use and C-peptide as qualifiers with treatment success based on glucose assessment using CGM metrics on par with assessment of glycated hemoglobin and severe hypoglycemia events.
CONTEXT: The Igls criteria were developed to provide a consensus definition for outcomes of β-cell replacement therapy in the treatment of diabetes during a January 2017 workshop sponsored by the International Pancreas & Islet Transplant Association (IPITA) and the European Pancreas & Islet Transplant Association. In July 2019, a symposium at the 17th IPITA World Congress was held to examine the Igls criteria after 2 years in clinical practice, including validation against continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived glucose targets, and to propose future refinements that would allow for comparison of outcomes with artificial pancreas system approaches. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Utilization of the criteria in various clinical and research settings was illustrated by population as well as individual outcome data of 4 islet and/or pancreas transplant centers. Validation against CGM metrics was conducted in 55 islet transplant recipients followed-up to 10 years from a fifth center. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The Igls criteria provided meaningful clinical assessment on an individual patient and treatment group level, allowing for comparison both within and between different β-cell replacement modalities. Important limitations include the need to account for changes in insulin requirements and C-peptide levels relative to baseline. In islet transplant recipients, CGM glucose time in range improved with each category of increasing β-cell graft function. CONCLUSIONS: Future Igls 2.0 criteria should consider absolute rather than relative levels of insulin use and C-peptide as qualifiers with treatment success based on glucose assessment using CGM metrics on par with assessment of glycated hemoglobin and severe hypoglycemia events.
Authors: L Kessler; S Bakopoulou; R Kessler; G Massard; N Santelmo; M Greget; F Moreau; O Helms; D Bosco; P Gasche-Soccal; P Morel; P Wolf; T Berney Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Stephen T Bartlett; James F Markmann; Paul Johnson; Olle Korsgren; Bernhard J Hering; David Scharp; Thomas W H Kay; Jonathan Bromberg; Jon S Odorico; Gordon C Weir; Nancy Bridges; Raja Kandaswamy; Peter Stock; Peter Friend; Mitsukazu Gotoh; David K C Cooper; Chung-Gyu Park; Phillip OʼConnell; Cherie Stabler; Shinichi Matsumoto; Barbara Ludwig; Pratik Choudhary; Boris Kovatchev; Michael R Rickels; Megan Sykes; Kathryn Wood; Kristy Kraemer; Albert Hwa; Edward Stanley; Camillo Ricordi; Mark Zimmerman; Julia Greenstein; Eduard Montanya; Timo Otonkoski Journal: Transplantation Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Andrew M Posselt; Gregory L Szot; Lynda A Frassetto; Umesh Masharani; Mehdi Tavakol; Raj Amin; Joan McElroy; Marissa D Ramos; Robert K Kerlan; Lawrence Fong; Flavio Vincenti; Jeffrey A Bluestone; Peter G Stock Journal: Transplantation Date: 2010-12-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: S A Wisel; J M Gardner; G R Roll; J Harbell; C E Freise; S Feng; S M Kang; R Hirose; D B Kaufman; A M Posselt; P G Stock Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Roy W Beck; Richard M Bergenstal; Peiyao Cheng; Craig Kollman; Anders L Carlson; Mary L Johnson; David Rodbard Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2019-01-13
Authors: Melena D Bellin; Andres Gelrud; Guillermo Arreaza-Rubin; Ty B Dunn; Abhinav Humar; Katherine A Morgan; Bashoo Naziruddin; Cristiana Rastellini; Michael R Rickels; Sarah J Schwarzenberg; Dana K Andersen Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: M F Nijhoff; M A Engelse; J Dubbeld; A E Braat; J Ringers; D L Roelen; A R van Erkel; H S Spijker; H Bouwsma; P J M van der Boog; J W de Fijter; T J Rabelink; E J P de Koning Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2015-08-19 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Casey Ward; Jon S Odorico; Michael R Rickels; Thierry Berney; George W Burke; Thomas W H Kay; Olivier Thaunat; Pablo D Uva; Eelco J P de Koning; Helmut Arbogast; Hanne Scholz; Mark S Cattral; Robert J Stratta; Peter G Stock Journal: Transplantation Date: 2022-07-22 Impact factor: 5.385