Impact of a sports project centered on scuba diving for adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus: New guidelines for adolescent recreational diving, a modification of the French regulations.

BACKGROUND: Recreational scuba diving has been authorized for type 1 diabetics over 18 years old - the age of majority in France - since 2004, but it remained forbidden for younger diabetics by the French underwater federation (FFESSM). Here, we present a study to evaluate: - the conditions under which diving could be authorized for 14- to 18 year olds with type 1 diabetes; - the value of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) while diving. A secondary objective was to monitor the impact of diving on the teenagers' quality of life. SUBJECT AND METHODS: Sixteen adolescents (14-17.5 years old) were included. Diabetes was known for 6 years (range, 1-14) and Hb1Ac was 9.0% (range, 7.7-11.9). The study was conducted in Mayotte with both capillary glycemia (CG) and CGM measurements taken during five dives. RESULTS: The average CG prior to diving was 283mg/dL and decreased by 75±76mg/dL during the dive. No hypoglycemia occurred during the dives and four episodes occurred after. Glycemia variations during dives and for the overall duration of the study were greater than for adults, most likely due to the general adolescent behavior, notably regarding diet and diabetes management. CGM was greatly appreciated by the adolescents. They had an overall satisfactory quality of life. No significant variations were observed during the entire course of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Although in need of further studies, these preliminary results show that CGM can be used while diving. CGM records show a continuous decrease of glycemia during dives. Based on these results, the French underwater federation has now authorized diving for adolescent type 1 diabetics following a specific diving protocol that includes HbA1c<8.5%, autonomous management of diabetes by the adolescent, reduction of insulin doses, and target glycemia prior to the dive>250mg/dL.

Blood glucose changes and adjustments of diet and insulin doses in type 1 diabetic patients during scuba diving (for a change in French regulations).

OBJECTIVE: In France, diabetic subjects were not allowed to dive. The principal risk is hypoglycemia during immersion. However scuba diving is allowed in many countries. To follow blood glucose changes, food intake and insulin adjustments in type 1 diabetic patients when diving, and to propose specific guidelines for such patients willing to practice recreational scuba diving. METHODS: Fifteen well-controlled (mean HbA1c: 7.2%) type 1 diabetic patients without complications were volunteer to dive under strict medical monitoring. They dove 8 times in 4 days in autumn at a depth of 20 meters, in 12 degrees C to 16 degrees C water. A strict protocol based on blood glucose was implemented to prevent hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: No case of hypoglycemia was observed and no faintness was reported underwater. Mean blood glucose before diving was 200 mg/dl (11 mmol/l). There was a mean fall in blood glucose of 40 mg/dl (2.2 mmol/l) during dives, a mean decrease in daily insulin doses by 19.3% on the last day. Daily energy intake was 3,225 Kcal in average. A continuous glucose monitoring (CGMS) was performed in one patient and showed a rather stable glycemia during immersion but a decrease within the 8 hours after. CONCLUSION: When respecting a strict protocol to prevent hypoglycaemia, the risk of hypoglycaemia appears quite low. We recommend an ideal glycemic goal of 200-250 mg/dl (11-13.75 mmol/l) before immersion, a higher reduction of insulin doses (-30%) and taking carbohydrates on board in any case. The present data have recently led the French diving federation (FESSM) to allow type 1 diabetic patients to dive with some restrictive qualification requirements: dives within the "safety curve" (no decompression curve), in above 14 degrees C water, depth limited to the median space range (6 to 20 meters), plus mandatory guidance by a diving instructor.

Sex hormone-binding globulin, estradiol, and bone turnover markers in male osteoporosis.

The role of estrogen deficiency in male osteoporosis is still under discussion. One hundred five subjects, 65 of them suffering from osteoporosis (mean age, 53.9 years) and 40 age-matched controls were studied. Osteoporosis was defined by a T score < -2.5 in the lumbar spine or at the femoral neck. Forty-one (63.1%) of the subjects had a history of low-energy fractures, involving vertebrae in 33 cases (50.8%). Osteoporosis was considered to be idiopathic in 33 subjects (50.8%) for whom no etiology could be found. We measured levels of total estradiol (pg/ml, with a detection threshold of 4 pg/ml), total testosterone (ng/ml), and their carrier protein, that is, sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG, pmol/ml). Various markers of bone remodeling were also measured. Two of them provide an estimate of bone formation-osteocalcin (OC) and bone alkaline phosphatase (BAP). Two others evaluate bone resorption-procollagen type I C-terminal telopeptide (ICTP) and serum C-telopeptide of type I collagen (sCTX). There was no significant difference in estradiol levels between controls and osteroporosis patients. We did not find any significant correlation between estradiol levels and spinal bone mineral density (BMD) (r = 0.15, P > 0.05), and the relationship between estradiol levels and BMD at the femoral neck was weak (r = 0.25, P < 0.05). On the other hand, SHBG was significantly higher in the osteoporotic patients than in controls (P < 0.01). This difference persisted after adjustment for body mass index (BMI) and after exclusion of patients with a condition known to increase SHBG levels. Moreover, this carrier protein was negatively correlated with BMD at the femoral neck (r = -0.37, P < 0.01) and at the lumbar spine (r = -0.27, P < 0.05). SHBG also correlates strongly with sCTX (r = 0.37, P < 0.01). Finally, logistic regression analysis showed that serum SHBG concentration was significantly associated with the presence of fractures; the odds ratio of having a fracture was 2.04 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-3.4, P < 0.01] for each increase of 1 standard deviation (SD) in the patient's SHBG level. The stronger relationship was nearly the same for the whole group and for patients with idiopathic osteoporosis. This study therefore suggests that SHBG may play a key role in male patients with idiopathic or secondary osteoporosis. It shows that serum SHBG concentration is increased in middle-aged men with osteoporosis and is correlated with hip, spine BMD, and sCTX levels. Finally, our findings are in agreement with previous studies which suggest that serum SHBG is a new biological marker of fracture risk in men.