Dyslipidaemia and statin use in individuals aged 10 to <40 years in the T1D Exchange clinic registry.

For individuals aged 10 to <40 years with type 1 diabetes and dyslipidaemia, US national guidelines recommend consideration of statin therapy based on age, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level and other cardiovascular risk factors. We evaluated dyslipidaemia prevalence, statin therapy use, and associations between not meeting target LDL-C [<100 mg/dL (<5.55 mmol/L)] and other cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in individuals aged 10 to <40 years in the T1D Exchange clinic registry. In 7223 participants, statin use was 2% in 10 to <18 year olds, 4% in 18 to <25 year olds, and 21% in 25 to <40 year olds. Individuals not on statin therapy with LDL-C above target were more likely to have ≥1 additional CVD risk factor(s) than those with LDL-C in the target range for all age groups (all P < 0.01). While most individuals not on statin therapy had LDL-C in the target range, those who did not were more likely to have ≥1 additional CVD risk factor(s), and therefore longitudinal study of lipid levels and statin use is needed to see if treatment of dyslipidaemia to target LDL-C levels may lower the risk of future CVD in individuals aged 10 to <40 years with type 1 diabetes.

Nighttime is the worst time: Parental fear of hypoglycemia in young children with type 1 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Fear of hypoglycemia is common in parents of young children with type 1 diabetes (T1D), but little is known about the specific fears that parents most often experience. Hypoglycemia fear has been associated with poorer glycemic control in older children, though not yet studied in a large cohort of very young children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Parents of 549 children <7 years (mean 5.2 ± 1.2 years [19% <3 years]) with a mean diabetes duration of 2.4 ± 1.0 years (range 1-6 years) and mean HbA1c 8.2% ± 1.1% (66 ± 12 mmol/mol) registered in the T1D Exchange completed the worry scale of the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey modified for parents (HFS-P). RESULTS: Mean parental fear of hypoglycemia worry score was 36.1 ± 23.1 (possible range 0-100), with most frequent worries related to the child having a low while asleep and the child not recognizing a low. The mean worry score was not associated with the child's age, glycemic control, or recent severe hypoglycemic event. Parental worries about lows while sleeping were significantly higher in pump users than non-users (61% vs. 45%; P < .001), and tended to be higher in CGM users than non-users (62% vs 51%; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: The greatest worries of parents of young children with T1D were related to hypoglycemia during sleep and other times/circumstances during which it would be difficult to detect hypoglycemia. Using advanced diabetes technologies may be an effort to temper fears about hypoglycemia during sleep, though the directionality of this relationship is undetermined. Additional studies can clarify this association and leverage use of diabetes technologies to improve glycemic control.

Timing of Meal Insulin and Its Relation to Adherence to Therapy in Type 1 Diabetes.

The purpose of this study is to examine timing of meal insulin and further determine whether an association exists between timing of meal insulin and missed meal insulin doses. The cohort included 4768 T1D Exchange clinic registry participants <26 years with type 1 diabetes ≥1 year. Chi-square tests, t-tests, and regression were used to assess the relationship between participant characteristics and timing of meal insulin and missed meal doses, respectively. Timing of meal insulin and association with missed meal doses was analyzed using logistic regression. In all, 21% reported administering insulin several minutes before, 44% immediately before, 10% during, and 24% after meal. Participants who gave insulin prior to a meal had significantly lower HbA1c than those who gave insulin during or after meal (8.4% ± 1.5% vs 8.8% ± 1.6%, adjusted P < .001), but no significant association was observed regarding DKA events. Those who reported missing ≥1 insulin dose per week had higher HbA1c (9.8% ± 1.9% vs 8.3% ± 1.3%, adjusted P < .001) and were more likely to experience at least one DKA event (9% vs 5%, adjusted P = .001) compared with those who rarely missed a meal insulin dose. Participants who reported administering insulin during or after a meal were more likely to report missing ≥1 meal insulin dose per week compared with those who administered insulin before a meal (28% vs 14%, adjusted P < .001). Premeal insulin was associated with lower HbA1c and fewer missed meal insulin doses. Providers may use this information to discuss the benefits of premeal insulin on glycemic control and adherence to therapy.

Management and Family Burdens Endorsed by Parents of Youth <7 Years Old With Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated unique burdens experienced by parents of young children with type 1 diabetes in the context of contemporary diabetes management. METHODS: Self-report surveys and medical record information from the T1D Exchange clinic registry were used. Parental burden and family impact scores were tabulated across demographic and clinical characteristics, overall and according to age group (<4, 4-<6, and 6-<7 years). RESULTS: The mean age of the 597 children was 5.2 ± 1.2 years (n = 111 <4 years, n = 291 4-<6 years, and n = 195 6-<7 years) and mean duration of diabetes was 2.4 ± 1.1 years. Mean hemoglobin A1c was 8.2% ± 1.1%. Approximately one-third (31%) reported their child was currently using CGM and over half (58%) reported using insulin pumps. The most frequently endorsed parent-reported burdens of diabetes were worrying about child having a low blood sugar (74%), about the future and possibility of serious complications (70%), and feeling upset when their child's diabetes management is "off track" (61%). Areas endorsed for negative family impact were diminished amount or quality of sleep for family members (59%) and need for flexible working arrangements to help care for their child (55%). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial burdens remain for parents of young children with type 1 diabetes, despite the availability of advanced technologies for diabetes management.

Insulin Pump Use in Young Children with Type 1 Diabetes: Sociodemographic Factors and Parent-Reported Barriers.

BACKGROUND: Managing type 1 diabetes (T1D) in young children presents challenges to families and caregivers. Pump therapy may reduce challenges and benefit glycemic control. However, pump use is not universal; parent-reported reasons for lack of uptake are not well described. METHODS: Parents of children <7, with T1D for ≥1 year, in the T1D Exchange registry completed surveys capturing demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as barriers to pump use. Data from pump users were compared to nonusers, and barriers were analyzed among parents who received pump recommendations, but decided against uptake. RESULTS: Young children (N = 515) from 41 sites were identified (mean age 5.2 ± 1.2 years, diabetes duration 2.4 ± 1.0 years, 46% female, and 78% Non-Hispanic White). Overall glycemic control was suboptimal (HbA1c 8.1% ± 1.0%). The majority were pump users (64%, n = 331; nonusers 36%, n = 184). Pump users had longer T1D duration (2.5 ± 1.1 years vs. 2.2 ± 1.0 years, P = 0.001), were more likely to have annual household incomes ≥$75,000 (62% vs. 36%, P < 0.001), have a parent with college education or higher (70% vs. 45%, P < 0.001), perform more frequent blood glucose monitoring (7.5 ± 2.5 times/day vs. 6.5 ± 2.3 times/day, P < 0.001), and use continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) (45% vs. 13%, P < 0.001). Only income, education, frequency of blood glucose monitoring, and CGM use remained significant in a multivariate model including age, sex, ethnicity, and duration of diabetes. Barriers to pump uptake included concerns with physical interference, therapeutic effectiveness, and to a lesser extent, financial burden. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide an opportunity to address potentially modifiable parent-reported barriers to pump uptake through education and behavioral intervention.

Prevalence of Celiac Disease in 52,721 Youth With Type 1 Diabetes: International Comparison Across Three Continents.

OBJECTIVE: Celiac disease (CD) has a recognized association with type 1 diabetes. We examined international differences in CD prevalence and clinical characteristics of youth with coexisting type 1 diabetes and CD versus type 1 diabetes only. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data sources were as follows: the Prospective Diabetes Follow-up Registry (DPV) (Germany/Austria); the T1D Exchange Clinic Network (T1DX) (U.S.); the National Paediatric Diabetes Audit (NPDA) (U.K. [England/Wales]); and the Australasian Diabetes Data Network (ADDN) (Australia). The analysis included 52,721 youths <18 years of age with a clinic visit between April 2013 and March 2014. Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were constructed to analyze the relationship between outcomes (HbA1c, height SD score [SDS], overweight/obesity) and type 1 diabetes/CD versus type 1 diabetes, adjusting for sex, age, and diabetes duration. RESULTS: Biopsy-confirmed CD was present in 1,835 youths (3.5%) and was diagnosed at a median age of 8.1 years (interquartile range 5.3-11.2 years). Diabetes duration at CD diagnosis was <1 year in 37% of youths, >1-2 years in 18% of youths, >3-5 years in 23% of youths, and >5 years in 17% of youths. CD prevalence ranged from 1.9% in the T1DX to 7.7% in the ADDN and was higher in girls than boys (4.3% vs. 2.7%, P < 0.001). Children with coexisting CD were younger at diabetes diagnosis compared with those with type 1 diabetes only (5.4 vs. 7.0 years of age, P < 0.001) and fewer were nonwhite (15 vs. 18%, P < 0.001). Height SDS was lower in those with CD (0.36 vs. 0.48, adjusted P < 0.001) and fewer were overweight/obese (34 vs. 37%, adjusted P < 0.001), whereas mean HbA1c values were comparable: 8.3 ± 1.5% (67 ± 17 mmol/mol) versus 8.4 ± 1.6% (68 ± 17 mmol/mol). CONCLUSIONS: CD is a common comorbidity in youth with type 1 diabetes. Differences in CD prevalence may reflect international variation in screening and diagnostic practices, and/or CD risk. Although glycemic control was not different, the lower height SDS supports close monitoring of growth and nutrition in this population.