Impact of school-supervised ultra-long-acting basal insulin injections on ketosis in youth with T1D and elevated haemoglobin A1c: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: In youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D), high haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels are associated with an increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). AIMS: This study examined whether daily school-supervised basal insulin injections were feasible and if they reduced the risk of morning ketosis in children and adolescents with high HbA1c levels. We hypothesized that supervised glargine and degludec would reduce the risk of ketosis and that the prolonged action of degludec would protect from ketosis after consecutive days of unsupervised injections. MATERIALS & METHODS: After a 2-4-week run-in, youth (10-18 years, HbA1c ≥ 8.5%) managing T1D with injections were randomized to school-supervised administration of degludec or glargine for 4 months. School nurses observed daily blood ß-hydroxybutyrate (BHB) and glucose checks. During COVID closures, the research team supervised procedures remotely. RESULTS: Data from 28 youth (age 14.3 ± 2.3 years, HbA1c 11.4 ± 1.9%, 64% F) were analysed. School-supervised injections of both basal insulins for 1-4 days progressively lowered the percent of participants with elevated BHB. The percent of participants with elevated BHB (≥0.6 mmol/L) after 2 days of unsupervised basal insulin doses at home was greater in the glargine than degludec group but had a high p-value (17.2% vs. 9.0%, p = 0.3). HbA1c was unchanged in both groups. DISCUSSION: In youth with T1D at high risk for DKA, daily supervised long-acting insulin administration decreased the probability of elevated ketone levels on subsequent school days, regardless of basal insulin type. A larger sample size may have demonstrated that the longer action profile of degludec would offer additional protection from ketosis during days of not attending school. CONCLUSION: Engaging school-based caregivers in management of youth with T1D on injected insulin may decrease clinically significant ketosis and minimize acute complications of diabetes.

Liraglutide in Children and Adolescents with Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Metformin is the regulatory-approved treatment of choice for most youth with type 2 diabetes early in the disease. However, early loss of glycemic control has been observed with metformin monotherapy. Whether liraglutide added to metformin (with or without basal insulin treatment) is safe and effective in youth with type 2 diabetes is unknown. METHODS: Patients who were 10 to less than 17 years of age were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive subcutaneous liraglutide (up to 1.8 mg per day) or placebo for a 26-week double-blind period, followed by a 26-week open-label extension period. Inclusion criteria were a body-mass index greater than the 85th percentile and a glycated hemoglobin level between 7.0 and 11.0% if the patients were being treated with diet and exercise alone or between 6.5 and 11.0% if they were being treated with metformin (with or without insulin). All the patients received metformin during the trial. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the glycated hemoglobin level after 26 weeks. Secondary end points included the change in fasting plasma glucose level. Safety was assessed throughout the course of the trial. RESULTS: Of 135 patients who underwent randomization, 134 received at least one dose of liraglutide (66 patients) or placebo (68 patients). Demographic characteristics were similar in the two groups (mean age, 14.6 years). At the 26-week analysis of the primary efficacy end point, the mean glycated hemoglobin level had decreased by 0.64 percentage points with liraglutide and increased by 0.42 percentage points with placebo, for an estimated treatment difference of -1.06 percentage points (P<0.001); the difference increased to -1.30 percentage points by 52 weeks. The fasting plasma glucose level had decreased at both time points in the liraglutide group but had increased in the placebo group. The number of patients who reported adverse events was similar in the two groups (56 [84.8%] with liraglutide and 55 [80.9%] with placebo), but the overall rates of adverse events and gastrointestinal adverse events were higher with liraglutide. CONCLUSIONS: In children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes, liraglutide, at a dose of up to 1.8 mg per day (added to metformin, with or without basal insulin), was efficacious in improving glycemic control over 52 weeks. This efficacy came at the cost of an increased frequency of gastrointestinal adverse events. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; Ellipse ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01541215.).

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide updated and new evidence-based recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, other health care professionals and stakeholders, and individuals with diabetes and their caregivers. METHODS: The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology selected a task force of medical experts and staff who updated and assessed clinical questions and recommendations from the prior 2015 version of this guideline and conducted literature searches for relevant scientific papers published from January 1, 2015, through May 15, 2022. Selected studies from results of literature searches composed the evidence base to update 2015 recommendations as well as to develop new recommendations based on review of clinical evidence, current practice, expertise, and consensus, according to established American Association of Clinical Endocrinology protocol for guideline development. RESULTS: This guideline includes 170 updated and new evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes. Recommendations are divided into four sections: (1) screening, diagnosis, glycemic targets, and glycemic monitoring; (2) comorbidities and complications, including obesity and management with lifestyle, nutrition, and bariatric surgery, hypertension, dyslipidemia, retinopathy, neuropathy, diabetic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease; (3) management of prediabetes, type 2 diabetes with antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy and glycemic targets, type 1 diabetes with insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, hospitalized persons, and women with diabetes in pregnancy; (4) education and new topics regarding diabetes and infertility, nutritional supplements, secondary diabetes, social determinants of health, and virtual care, as well as updated recommendations on cancer risk, nonpharmacologic components of pediatric care plans, depression, education and team approach, occupational risk, role of sleep medicine, and vaccinations in persons with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: This updated clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to assist with person-centered, team-based clinical decision-making to improve the care of persons with diabetes mellitus.

A Pilot Study of Youth With Type 1 Diabetes Initiating Use of a Hybrid Closed-Loop System While Receiving a Behavioral Economics Intervention.

OBJECTIVE: Many youth do not use the hybrid closed-loop system for type 1 diabetes effectively. This study evaluated the impact of financial incentives for diabetes-related tasks on use of the 670G hybrid closed-loop system and on glycemia. METHODS: At auto mode initiation and for 16 weeks thereafter, participants received a flat rate for wearing and calibrating the sensor ($1/day), administering at least 3 mealtime insulin boluses per day ($1/day), and uploading ($5/week). Weekly bonuses were given for maintaining at least 70% of the time in auto mode, which were increased for persistent auto mode use from $3/week to a maximum of $13/week. If a participant failed to maintain auto mode for a week, the rewards were reset to baseline. Data from 17 participants aged 15.9 years ± 2.5 years (baseline hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] 8.6% ± 1.1%) were collected at 6, 12, and 16 weeks. The reinforcers were withdrawn at 16 weeks, with a follow-up assessment at 24 weeks. RESULTS: With reinforcers, the participants administered an average of at least 3 mealtime insulin boluses per day and wore the sensor over 70% of the time. However, auto mode use waned. HbA1c levels decreased by 0.5% after 6 weeks, and this improvement was maintained at 12 and 16 weeks (P < .05). Upon withdrawal of reinforcers, HbA1c levels increased back to baseline at 24 weeks. CONCLUSION: Compensation for diabetes-related tasks was associated with lower HbA1c levels, consistent administration of mealtime insulin boluses, and sustained sensor use. These results support the potential of financial rewards for improving outcomes in youth with type 1 diabetes.

"I'm essentially his pancreas": Parent perceptions of diabetes burden and opportunities to reduce burden in the care of children <8 years old with type 1 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Across all age groups, management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) places substantial responsibility and emotional burden upon families. This study explored parent perceptions of the burdens of caring for very young children with T1D. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with parents (85% mothers) of 79 children with T1D, aged 1 to <8 years old, from four diverse pediatric diabetes clinical centers. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using hybrid thematic analysis to derive central themes. RESULTS: Youth (77% White) had T1D for ≥6 months: age (M ± SD) 5.2 ± 1.5 years, diabetes duration 2.4 ± 1.3 years, and A1c 63 ± 10 mmol/mol (7.9 ± 0.9%); 66% used an insulin pump and 61% used CGM. Three major themes emerged related to diabetes burdens: (a) the emotional burden of diabetes on themselves and their children, (b) the burden of finding, training, and trusting effective secondary caregivers to manage the child's diabetes, and (c) suggestions for how more comprehensive, personalized diabetes education from healthcare providers for parents and secondary caregivers could help reduce parent burden and worry. CONCLUSIONS: In families with very young children with T1D, parental perceptions of the burden of managing diabetes are common and could be mitigated by tailored education programs that increase parent knowledge, bolster parents' confidence in themselves, and increase trust in their secondary caregivers to manage diabetes. Reduced parental burden and increased caregiver knowledge may positively impact child's glycemic control, as well as improve parent and child quality of life.

Executive task-based brain function in children with type 1 diabetes: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: Optimal glycemic control is particularly difficult to achieve in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D), yet the influence of dysglycemia on the developing brain remains poorly understood. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using a large multi-site study framework, we investigated activation patterns using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in 93 children with T1D (mean age 11.5 ± 1.8 years; 45.2% female) and 57 non-diabetic (control) children (mean age 11.8 ± 1.5 years; 50.9% female) as they performed an executive function paradigm, the go/no-go task. Children underwent scanning and cognitive and clinical assessment at 1 of 5 different sites. Group differences in activation occurring during the contrast of "no-go > go" were examined while controlling for age, sex, and scan site. Results indicated that, despite equivalent task performance between the 2 groups, children with T1D exhibited increased activation in executive control regions (e.g., dorsolateral prefrontal and supramarginal gyri; p = 0.010) and reduced suppression of activation in the posterior node of the default mode network (DMN; p = 0.006). Secondary analyses indicated associations between activation patterns and behavior and clinical disease course. Greater hyperactivation in executive control regions in the T1D group was correlated with improved task performance (as indexed by shorter response times to correct "go" trials; r = -0.36, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.16, p < 0.001) and with better parent-reported measures of executive functioning (r values < -0.29, 95% CIs -0.47 to -0.08, p-values < 0.007). Increased deficits in deactivation of the posterior DMN in the T1D group were correlated with an earlier age of T1D onset (r = -0.22, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.02, p = 0.033). Finally, exploratory analyses indicated that among children with T1D (but not control children), more severe impairments in deactivation of the DMN were associated with greater increases in hyperactivation of executive control regions (T1D: r = 0.284, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.46, p = 0.006; control: r = 0.108, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.36, p = 0.423). A limitation to this study involves glycemic effects on brain function; because blood glucose was not clamped prior to or during scanning, future studies are needed to assess the influence of acute versus chronic dysglycemia on our reported findings. In addition, the mechanisms underlying T1D-associated alterations in activation are unknown. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that increased recruitment of executive control areas in pediatric T1D may act to offset diabetes-related impairments in the DMN, ultimately facilitating cognitive and behavioral performance levels that are equivalent to that of non-diabetic controls. Future studies that examine whether these patterns change as a function of improved glycemic control are warranted.

Glucose management for rewards: A randomized trial to improve glucose monitoring and associated self-management behaviors in adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: This randomized, controlled trial evaluated a monetary-based reinforcement intervention for increasing self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) among youth with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes. METHODS: After a 2-week baseline, 60 participants were randomized to enhanced usual care (EUC) or Reinforcers. The Reinforcers group earned monetary rewards for SMBG and associated behaviors such as uploading glucose meters. Reinforcers were withdrawn at 24 weeks. A follow-up evaluation occurred at 36 weeks. RESULTS: Participants in the reinforcers group increased the proportion of days they completed ≥4 SMBG from 14.6% at baseline to 64.4%, 47.5%, and 37.8% at 6, 12, and 24 weeks, respectively. In contrast, EUC participants declined from 22.7% at baseline to 17.5%, 10.5%, and 11.1% (Ps < .01 vs EUC at all time points). Group differences were attenuated but remained significant after withdrawal of reinforcers. Effect sizes for SMBG were very large during reinforcement and large after withdrawal of reinforcers. In the reinforcers group, mean A1c dropped from 9.5% ± 1.2% at baseline to 9.0% ± 1.3% at week 6 and 9.0% ± 1.4% at week 12. For EUC, A1c was 9.2% ± 0.2% at baseline and ranged from 9.2% ± 1.5% to 9.6% ± 1.6% throughout the study (P < .05 vs EUC). Group differences in A1c were no longer significant at weeks 24 and 36. Effect sizes for A1c were small during reinforcement and also after withdrawal of reinforcement. CONCLUSIONS: Monetary-based reinforcement of adolescents with type 1 diabetes caused durable increases in SMBG. Modification of the reinforcement structure may be needed to sustain improved metabolic control in this challenging age group.

Screening eye exams in youth with type 1 diabetes under 18 years of age: Once may be enough?

Case series and registry data suggest that diabetic retinopathy requiring treatment is rare in youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D) prior to 18 years of age. We evaluated this question in the standardized clinical trial setting by retrospectively reviewing diabetic retinopathy examinations from participants in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) who were 13 to <18 years of age at randomization. Standardized stereoscopic 7-field fundus photographs were obtained every 6 months during DCCT (1983-1993). Photographs were graded centrally using the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) scale. Transitions in diabetic retinopathy status over time were described. A total of 195 participants with median baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of 9.3% (103 in the conventional and 92 in the intensive treatment groups) had an average of 5.3 diabetic retinopathy assessments during 2.3 years of follow-up (range 1-11) while under 18 years of age during the DCCT. No participant developed severe non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy or proliferative diabetic retinopathy and only one participant (in the intensive group) reached clinically significant macular edema (CSME) while less than 18 years of age. In this incident case, baseline characteristics included diabetes duration 9.3 years, HbA1c 10.3%, LDL 131 mg/dL, and mild non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (35/35 ETDRS scale); CSME resolved without treatment. Similar analyses using age cut-offs of <19, 20, or 21 years showed a slight rise in diabetic retinopathy requiring treatment over late adolescence. Clinical trial evidence suggests that frequent eye exams may not be universally necessary in youth <18 years of age with T1D.

IMPACT OF SWITCHING YOUTH WITH DIABETES TO INSULIN DEGLUDEC IN CLINICAL PRACTICE.

OBJECTIVE: Many youth with diabetes struggle to meet glycemic targets. The new ultralong duration of action of insulin degludec (iDeg) holds potential to ameliorate missed doses of basal insulin and improve glycemic control in youth with diabetes. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was undertaken of youth age 13 to <24 years in our practice with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) who had been switched from glargine or detemir to iDeg to evaluate the impact of this transition on glycemic control. RESULTS: Glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in youth with T1D (n = 82) remained stable during 6 months of treatment with iDeg (10.1 ± 2.11% [87 ± 23 mmol/mol] at start of iDeg compared to 10.1 ± 2.12% [87 ± 23 mmol/mol] at 6 months of treatment), whereas in youth with T2D (n = 16), HbA1c significantly declined from 10.6 ± 2.3% (92 ± 25 mmol/mol) to 8.3 ± 2.2% (67 ± 24 mmol/mol) ( P = .0024). CONCLUSION: In youth switched to iDeg, which in our practice is commonly due to ineffectiveness of the patient's current regimen, the outcome differences we saw may be due to preserved beta-cell function in youth with T2D. It remains to be seen whether there are benefits of transition to iDeg in youth with T1D beyond glycemic outcomes, such as reduction in ketosis and episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis. ABBREVIATIONS: DKA = diabetic ketoacidosis; DPV = Diabetes-Patienten-Verlaufsdokumentation (German/Austrian Prospective Diabetes Follow-Up Registry); HbA1c = glycated hemoglobin A1c; iDeg = insulin degludec; T1D = type 1 diabetes; T2D = type 2 diabetes.

Persistence of abnormalities in white matter in children with type 1 diabetes.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Prior studies suggest white matter growth is reduced and white matter microstructure is altered in the brains of young children with type 1 diabetes when compared with brains of non-diabetic children, due in part to adverse effects of hyperglycaemia. This longitudinal observational study examines whether dysglycaemia alters the developmental trajectory of white matter microstructure over time in young children with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: One hundred and eighteen children, aged 4 to <10 years old with type 1 diabetes and 58 age-matched, non-diabetic children were studied at baseline and 18 months, at five Diabetes Research in Children Network clinical centres. We analysed longitudinal trajectories of white matter using diffusion tensor imaging. Continuous glucose monitoring profiles and HbA1c levels were obtained every 3 months. RESULTS: Axial diffusivity was lower in children with diabetes at baseline (p = 0.022) and at 18 months (p = 0.015), indicating that differences in white matter microstructure persist over time in children with diabetes. Within the diabetes group, lower exposure to hyperglycaemia, averaged over the time since diagnosis, was associated with higher fractional anisotropy (p = 0.037). Fractional anisotropy was positively correlated with performance (p < 0.002) and full-scale IQ (p < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: These results suggest that hyperglycaemia is associated with altered white matter development, which may contribute to the mild cognitive deficits in this population.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of canagliflozin in pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Canagliflozin, a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), increases urinary glucose excretion (UGE) and lowers plasma glucose (PG) levels by reducing the renal threshold for glucose (RTG ). This study assessed the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of canagliflozin in pediatric T2D patients. METHODS: Patients, aged 10 to 17 years with mean weight 107.2 kg and body mass index 38.2 kg/m2 , underwent PK and PD assessments after receiving a single daily dose of canagliflozin 100 mg (n = 8) or 300 mg (n = 9) for 14 days. Data are presented as mean (SD). RESULTS: There were dose-dependent increases in the PK of canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg, with maximum plasma concentrations and areas under plasma concentration curves that were similar to the corresponding values in adults. Mean 24-hour RTG fell to 84.6 (13.8) mg/dL with canagliflozin 100 mg and to 69.1 (9.6) mg/dL with canagliflozin 300 mg; also consistent with reductions in RTG in adults. Mean 24-hour UGE increased from 5.3 (10.5) g at baseline to 74.1 (37.4) g with canagliflozin 100 mg and from 0.1 (0.04) g to 68.6 (26.5) g with canagliflozin 300 mg. Both doses were well tolerated and the tablets had acceptable taste, smell, and swallowability. CONCLUSIONS: In pediatric T2D patients, canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg had PK and PD characteristics similar to those in adults with T2D, which is likely due to the relative maturity and increased body weight of youth affected with this disorder.

Schooling diabetes: Use of continuous glucose monitoring and remote monitors in the home and school settings.

BACKGROUND: Despite significant advances in type 1 diabetes (T1D) management, achieving targeted glycemic control in pediatric patients remains a struggle. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with remote access holds the promise to address this challenge by allowing caregivers to monitor glucose, even when the child is not directly under their supervision. OBJECTIVE: To explore real-time and remote CGM practices in homes and schools, including caregiver expectations regarding this technology. SUBJECTS: Parents and daytime caregivers. METHODS: Respondents answered an anonymous survey assessing characteristics of CGM use. Cross-sectional data were collected and analyzed using quantitative and qualitative methods. RESULTS: Thirty-three parents and 17 daytime caregivers responded. Threshold alerts (alerts when patients reached certain pre-set high or low limits) were used most frequently, followed by rate of change alerts. Most parents and daytime caregivers responded to low- and high-threshold CGM alerts by confirming with a glucose meter prior to treatment; while about one-third endorsed treating lows without a confirmatory test. Most parents expected their child's daytime caregiver to respond to CGM alerts and daytime caregivers felt the parent's expectations of them were reasonable. All parents and most caregivers reported decreased overall worry/stress. Parents felt positive about CGM use and daytime caregivers felt comfortable with CGM. CONCLUSION: The positive and collaborative management reported by parents and daytime caregivers sets the stage for CGM to play an important role in the management of children with T1D both in the home and in the school settings.

Eligibility for clinical trials is limited for youth with type 2 diabetes: Insights from the Pediatric Diabetes Consortium T2D Clinic Registry.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Restrictive eligibility criteria have hampered enrollment into trials for new drugs for youth with type 2 diabetes (T2D). We utilized Pediatric Diabetes Consortium (PDC) T2D Registry enrollment data to estimate the percentage of patients who would be excluded from current T2D trials based on out-of-range HbA1c levels. We also examined whether well-controlled patients could be included because baseline HbA1c would rise during a 6 to 12-month study if assigned to control group. METHODS: Clinical characteristics and HbA1c levels were collected from 956 T2D patients aged 10 to <18 years upon Registry enrollment. HbA1c levels were also analyzed in 6-month intervals during the first 30 months of T2D duration. RESULTS: There was an approximately 2:1 ratio of females to males; the majority were obese and from economically disadvantaged minority families. On enrollment in the Registry, 53% of patients would be excluded from current trials because HbA1c levels were either <6.5% (<48 mmol/mol) (37%) or >10.5% (>91 mmol/mol) (16%). Furthermore, in patients with HbA1c levels <6.5% (<48 mmol/mol) and T2D duration between 6 and 30 months, mean HbA1c levels increased by 0.6% (6 mmol/mol) and 0.9% (10 mmol/mol) over the subsequent 6 and 12 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Eligibility criteria for current clinical trials still exclude a large proportion of pediatric T2D patients because of HbA1c levels. Including patients with HbA1c <6.5% (<48 mmol/mol) would enhance recruitment and allow comparisons of the investigational treatment with placebo-assigned subjects in whom HbA1c levels would on average increase during the 6 to 12 months of the trial.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-finding study of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin in pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the dose of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor linagliptin in pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: Double-blind, randomized, controlled parallel group study comparing linagliptin 1 and 5 mg once daily, with placebo in 39 patients with T2D aged 10 to below 18 years. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) after 12 weeks of treatment. The key pharmacodynamic endpoint was DPP-4 inhibition during steady-state. RESULTS: Compared to placebo, there was a dose-dependent reduction in mean HbA1c of 0.48% and 0.63% with linagliptin 1 and 5 mg, respectively, associated with corresponding declines in mean fasting plasma glucose (FPG) of 5.6 and 34.2 mg/dL. Median DPP-4 inhibition was 38% with linagliptin 1 mg and 79% with linagliptin 5 mg. Geometric mean trough levels of linagliptin were 3.80 and 7.42 nmol/L in the 1 and 5 mg groups, respectively; levels that were slightly higher than in adult patients with T2D that were most likely caused by higher plasma DPP-4 concentrations in the study population. There were no drug-related adverse events during treatment with either dose of linagliptin. CONCLUSIONS: Linagliptin was well tolerated and induced dose-dependent DPP-4 inhibition that was accompanied by corresponding reductions in HbA1c and FPG levels in young people with T2D. The results are consistent with the clinical efficacy and safety profile that have been reported for linagliptin in adult patients with T2D, favoring linagliptin 5 mg over 1 mg.

Adolescent type 2 diabetes: Comparing the Pediatric Diabetes Consortium and Germany/Austria/Luxemburg Pediatric Diabetes Prospective registries.

OBJECTIVE: To examine and compare the clinical characteristics and treatment of youth with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in two registries: one in Europe and one in the United States. METHODS: Youth with onset of T2D at 10 to 18 years of age with current age <20 years and an office visit after diabetes duration >1 year were identified in the European (Prospective Diabetes Follow-up, DPV) and the United States (Pediatric Diabetes Consortium, PDC) databases. Demographic, physical and clinical characteristics and treatment at diagnosis as well as physical characteristics, treatment, laboratory data, and diabetes adverse events at most recent visit were analyzed from both registries. RESULTS: At diagnosis, the majority were female and obese; 70% of DPV vs 34% of PDC youth were diagnosed by targeted diabetes testing. PDC youth were younger, 12 vs 13 years (P < 0.001), had a greater body mass index-SDS, 3.07 vs 2.74 (P < 0.001), a higher hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), 9.9% vs 7.1% (P < 0.001), were more likely to present in DKA, 7.5% vs 1.3% (P < 0.001) and more likely to be treated with insulin, 62% vs 32% (P < 0.001); insulin treatment difference was not significant when adjusted for HbA1c. At follow-up, DPV youth had shorter diabetes duration, 2.1 vs 3.2 years (P < 0.001), lower HbA1c, 6.5% vs 7.8% (P < 0.001), were less likely to be treated with insulin, 36% vs 56%, (P < 0.001), and were more likely to have dyslipidemia and hypertension than PDC youth. PDC youth had a higher rate of microalbuminuria. CONCLUSIONS: Both DPV and PDC youth have multiple risks for diabetes complications. Understanding reasons for persistently higher HbA1c in PDC youth requires further study.

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.

Substance Use Disorders among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: a Dangerous but Understudied Combination.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This paper reviews research on substance use and disorders (SUDs) among adults with diabetes. It describes epidemiological data on SUDs in persons with type 2 diabetes, overviews effects of substance use on diabetes outcomes, and discusses treatments for SUDs in patients with diabetes. RECENT FINDINGS: Rates of current smoking range from 10 to 26% and alcohol use disorders are 0-5%. Rates of illicit SUDs are 3-4%, but there are no population-based studies using nationally representative samples. Smoking increases the risk for long-term diabetes complications and premature death. Alcohol and illicit drug use can also impact long-term diabetes complications by impairing glucose homeostasis and adversely influencing self-management behaviors. There is mixed evidence about psychosocial smoking cessation interventions in adults with diabetes and little on alcohol and illicit SUD interventions. Limited data exist on pharmacotherapies for SUDs in this population, but a recent study suggests that varenicline is safe and effective for treating smoking in patients with diabetes. Substance use is an understudied problem in type 2 diabetes, and addressing substance use holds potential for improving outcomes. Additional large population-based epidemiological studies in those with type 2 diabetes are needed, particularly for alcohol and illicit SUDs. Longitudinal studies should be conducted to better understand the time course of diabetes onset and outcomes in relation to SUDs. Randomized controlled trials are needed to assess safety and efficacy of promising psychosocial and pharmacological interventions.

Stress and Coping Predicts Adjustment and Glycemic Control in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Adolescents with type 1 diabetes are at increased risk for deteriorating glycemic control, poor quality of life, and depressive symptoms. Stress and coping are related to these outcomes in adolescents with diabetes, yet few studies have examined these constructs longitudinally. PURPOSE: This study aimed to describe stress and coping in adolescents with type 1 diabetes and to examine coping strategies as predictors of adolescent adjustment (i.e., depressive symptoms, quality of life) and glycemic control. METHODS: Adolescents with type 1 diabetes completed measures of diabetes-related stress, coping, symptoms of depression, and quality of life at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. Data on glycemic control were collected from the adolescents' medical charts. RESULTS: The adolescents' use of primary control coping (e.g., problem solving) and secondary control engagement coping (e.g., positive thinking) strategies predicted significantly fewer problems with quality of life and fewer depressive symptoms over time. In contrast, the use of disengagement coping strategies (e.g., avoidance) predicted more problems with quality of life and depressive symptoms. Coping was not a significant predictor of glycemic control. Coping mediated the effects of diabetes-related stress on depressive symptoms and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The ways in which adolescents with type 1 diabetes cope with diabetes-related stress predict quality of life and symptoms of depression but not glycemic control. Through the use of screening to identify adolescent's diabetes-related stress and targeted interventions to improve coping strategies, there is potential to improve outcomes.

Barriers to participation in industry-sponsored clinical trials in pediatric type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The rapid emergence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the pediatric population has left pediatric endocrinologists with limited artillery in terms of management. While multiple medications are available for adults, Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medications in children are limited to only metformin and insulin. Additional treatment options require randomized controlled trials, yet heretofore several barriers at the participant and institutional level have impeded these studies from proceeding in children and adolescents. Identification of the most challenging obstacles that pediatric endocrinologists experience in participating in industry-sponsored T2D trials may facilitate development of feasible platforms for future studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an anonymous online survey consisting of 31 questions that assessed potential barriers to industry-sponsored clinical trials in pediatric patients with T2D. The survey was sent to members of the Pediatric Endocrine Society (PES), and members conducted the survey between October and November of 2014. As part of the survey, respondents rated the significance of several possible barriers to participation in industry-sponsored T2D studies. RESULTS: We received a total of 207 responses from members of PES. Baseline demographics showed that 50% of represented institutions care for 50 or fewer T2D patients age 18 years and younger; 70% of institutions diagnose 20 or fewer new T2D cases per year; and 3 racial groups predominated: African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian. A total of 70% of responders have a research infrastructure to participate in clinical trials, but only half have dedicated research nurses. Protocol restrictions on participant recruitment due to current glycemic control or medication use as well as frequent visit schedules were reported to be major obstacles. In addition, the financial support provided to centers to carry out the studies is insufficient. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts must be made to ease the burden of research participation on both pediatric T2D patients as well as pediatric endocrinologists.