Evaluation and refinement of the PRESTARt tool for identifying 12-14 year olds at high lifetime risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared to a clinicians assessment of risk: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) was associated with older age, but is now being increasingly diagnosed in younger populations due to the increasing prevalence of obesity and inactivity. We aimed to evaluate whether a tool developed for community use to identify adolescents at high lifetime risk of developing T2DM agreed with a risk assessment conducted by a clinician using data collected from five European countries. We also assessed whether the tool could be simplified. METHODS: To evaluate the tool we collected data from 636 adolescents aged 12-14 years from five European countries. Each participant's data were then assessed by two clinicians independently, who judged each participant to be at either low or high risk of developing T2DM in their lifetime. This was used as the gold standard to which the tool was evaluated and refined. RESULTS: The refined tool categorised adolescents at high risk if they were overweight/obese and had at least one other risk factor (High waist circumference, family history of diabetes, parental obesity, not breast fed, high sugar intake, high screen time, low physical activity and low fruit and vegetable intake). Of those found to be at high risk by the clinicians, 93% were also deemed high risk by the tool. The specificity shows that 67% of those deemed at low risk by the clinicians were also found to be a low risk by the tool. CONCLUSIONS: We have evaluated a tool for identifying adolescents with risk factors associated with the development of T2DM in the future. Future work to externally validate the tool using prospective data including T2DM incidence is required.

Persistent heterogeneity in diabetes technology reimbursement for children with type 1 diabetes: The SWEET perspective.

BACKGROUND: Frequent use of modern diabetes technologies increases the chance for optimal type 1 diabetes (T1D) control. Limited reimbursement influences the access of patients with T1D to these modalities and could worsen their prognosis. We aimed to describe the situation of reimbursement for insulins, glucometers, insulin pumps (CSII) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for children with T1D in European countries participating in the SWEET Project and to compare data from EU countries with data from our previous study in 2009. METHODS: The study was conducted between March 2017 and August 2017. First, we approached diabetes technology companies with a survey to map the reimbursement of insulins and diabetic devices. The data collected from these companies were then validated by members of the SWEET consortium. RESULTS: We collected data from 29 European countries, whereas all types of insulins are mostly fully covered, heterogeneity was observed regarding the reimbursement of strips for glucometers (from 90 strips/month to no limit). CSII is readily available in 20 of 29 countries. Seven countries reported significant quota issues or obstacles for CSII prescription, and two countries had no CSII reimbursement. CGM is at least partially reimbursed in 17 of 29 countries. The comparison with the 2009 study showed an increasing availability of CSII and CGM across the EU. CONCLUSIONS: Although innovative diabetes technology is available, a large proportion of children with T1D still do not benefit from it due to its limited reimbursement.

Heterogeneity in the systems of pediatric diabetes care across the European Union.

BACKGROUND: It is known that the systems of pediatric diabetes care differ across the member states of the European Union (EU). The aim of this project was to characterize some of the main differences among the national systems. METHODS: Data were collected using two questionnaires. The first one was distributed among leading centers of pediatric diabetes (one per country) with the aim of establishing an overview of the systems, national policies, quality control (QC) and financing of pediatric diabetes care. Responses were received from all 27 EU countries. The second questionnaire was widely disseminated among all 354 International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes members with a domicile in an EU country; it included questions related to individual pediatric diabetes centers. A total of 108 datasets were collected and processed from healthcare professionals who were treating more than 29 000 children and adolescents with diabetes. Data on the reimbursement policies were verified by representatives of the pharmaceutical and medical device companies. RESULTS: The collected data reflect the situation in 2009. There was a notable heterogeneity among the systems for provision of pediatric diabetes care across the EU. Only 20/27 EU countries had a pediatric diabetes register. Nineteen countries had officially recognized centers for pediatric diabetes, but only nine of them had defined criteria for becoming such a center. A system for QC of pediatric diabetes at the national level was reported in 7/26 countries. Reimbursement for treatment varied significantly across the EU, potentially causing inequalities in access to modern technologies. CONCLUSIONS: The collected data help develop strategies toward improving equity and access to modern pediatric diabetes care across Europe.