Inequalities in Access to Diabetes Technologies in Children with Type 1 Diabetes: A Multicenter, Cross-sectional Study from Türkiye.

Objective: To determine inequalities in access to diabetes technologies and the effect of socioeconomic factors on families with children with type 1 diabetes. Methods: In this multicenter cross-sectional study, parents of children with type 1 diabetes completed a questionnaire about household sociodemographic characteristics, latest HbA1c values, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and insulin pump use of children, the education and working status of parents. These characteristics were compared between technology use (only-CGM, only-pump, CGM+pump, no technology use). Results: Among 882 families, only-CGM users, only-pump users, and CGM+pump users compared with no technology users, adjusting for age, sex, region, education levels, number of working parents, and household income. Children living in the least developed region had lower odds of having only-CGM (OR=0.20, 95%CI 0.12-0.34) and having CGM+pump (OR=0.07, 95%CI 0.03-0.22) compared with those living in the most developed region. Children with parents who had not finished high school had lower odds of having only-CGM (Mothers: OR=0.36, 95%CI 0.19-0.66; fathers: OR=0.32, 95%CI 0.18-0.60) or both CGM+pump (OR=0.27, 95%CI 0.11-0.64; fathers: OR=0.34, 95%CI 0.15-0.79) rather than no-technology compared to children whose parents has a university degree. Every $840 increase in the household income increased the odds by 5% for having only-CGM (OR=1.05, 95%CI 1.02-1.09) and CGM+pump (OR=1.05, 95%CI 1.01-1.08). Conclusion: Socioeconomic factors such as education, regions, and income were associated with inequality in access to technologies. The inequalities are more prominent in access to CGM while CGM had a bigger contribution to glycemic control.

Assessing the feasibility of time in tight range (TITR) targets with advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) use in children and adolescents: A single-centre real-world study.

AIMS: Time in Tight Range (TITR) is a novel glycaemic metric in monitoring type 1 diabetes (T1D) management. The aim of this study was to assess the attainability of the TITR target in children and adolescents using the advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL). METHODS: The 2128-day CGM data from 56 children and adolescents with T1D using AHCL (Minimed-780G) were analysed. Time in Range (TIR) (3.9-10 mmol/L), TITR (3.9-7.7 mmol/L), and other glycaemic parameters were separately analysed in terms of whole day, daytime (06.00-23:59), and nighttime (00.00-05.59) results. The participants were divided into two groups by autocorrection rate where Group 1 had a rate of <30% and Group 2 had a rate of ≥30. RESULTS: All glycaemic parameters indicated a better glycaemic outcome in the nighttime with higher TIR and TITR values compared with daytime (for TIR 87.5 ± 9.5% vs. 78.8 ± 8%, p < 0.001, and TITR 68.2 ± 13.5% vs. 57.5 ± 8.8%, p < 0.001). The rates of TITR >50% and >60% were 87% and 52%, respectively. When those with TITR >60% (n: 29) and those without (n: 27) were evaluated in terms of hypoglycaemia, no statistically significant difference was found in time below range (TBR) 3-3.9 mmol/L (0.3% vs. 2.1%, p: 0.084) and TBR < 3 mmol/L (0.47% vs. 0.3%, p: 0.298). Group 1 had a significantly higher TIR and TITR compared to Group 2 (82.6 ± 6.1% vs. 75.6 ± 8.6%, p: 0.008 and 62.1 ± 7.5% vs. 53.8 ± 7.5%, p: 0.002, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Most children and adolescents on AHCL achieved the 50% target for TITR whereas more than half achieved the >60% target. A target of >50% for TITR seems realistic in children with T1D using AHCL.

Current Management of Type 1 Diabetes in Children: Guideline-based Expert Opinions and Recommendations.

Successful management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) requires not only optimal glycemic outcomes, but also a holistic approach that encompasses all aspects of life and recommendations to address needs. Current goals include optimal glycaemic values, quality of life and life expectancy similar to peers, prevention of long-term complications, prevention of severe hypoglycaemia as much as possible, facilitation of glucose management, etc. International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) has been updating its guidelines for diabetes care every 4 years since 1995, covering more and more topics. For optimal metabolic outcomes, diabetes teams need to follow these current recommendations, adapt them to their clinical practice and provide guidance to people with type 1 diabetes/families. In this review, in the light of ISPAD 2018-2022 guidelines and clinical experiences, "10 Key Recommendations", emphasizing the importance of teamwork and the use of technology, current type 1 diabetes treatment is described for practical applications.

Associations between sleep characteristics and glycemic variability in youth with type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine sleep characteristics and their associations with glycemic variability in youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIAL AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study conducted at two pediatric diabetes centers in Istanbul, Turkey, included 84 children with T1D (mean age 10.5 years). Sleep characteristics and glycemic variability were determined by actigraphy, DSM-5 Level 2-Sleep Disturbance Scale Short Form and continuous glucose monitoring. Circadian preference was evaluated by the Children's Chronotype Questionnaire. Sleep disturbances were assessed by the. The sleep quality was determined by actigraphy-derived sleep measures. RESULTS: Eighty-eight percent of participants had insufficient age-appropriate total sleep time (TST) (<9 h for 6-13-year-olds and <8 h for 14-17-year-olds). Chronotype was classified as intermediate in 50%, evening in 45.2%, and morning in 4.8%. A higher chronotype score indicating a stronger eveningness preference was associated with more time spent in hypoglycemia (ß = 0.433, p = 0.002). On nights when participants had lower sleep efficiency and longer sleep onset latency, they had significantly higher overnight glycemic variability (ß = -0.343, p = 0.016, ß = 0.129, p = 0.017, respectively). Prolonged nocturnal wake duration was significantly associated with more time spent in daytime hypoglycemia (ß = 0.037, p = 0.046) and higher overnight glycemic variability (J index, ß = 0.300, p = 0.015). The associations between TST and glycemic variability indices were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Sleep quality rather than TST was significantly associated with glycemic variability in children with T1D. Eveningness preference might contribute to an increased risk of hypoglycemia. Addressing sleep patterns and chronotypes can be crucial in management plans for youth with T1D.

The Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop Improves Glycemia Risk Index, Continuous Glucose Monitoring Index, and Time in Range in Children with Type 1 Diabetes: Real-World Data from a Single Center Study.

Introduction: The Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) and Continuous Glucose Monitoring Index (COGI) are newly defined composite metric parameters derived from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data. GRI is divided into five separate risk zones (from lowest to highest: A-E). In this study, the effect of the advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) system on GRI and COGI in children with type 1 diabetes was evaluated. Materials and Methods: Forty-five children who had started using the AHCL and whose baseline and sixth-month CGM data were available were analyzed in terms of achievement of CGM consensus goals and changes in GRI scores and zones. The paired t-test was used for the analyses. Results: The mean age and duration of diabetes of the participants were 10.95 ± 3.41 and 3.85 ± 2.67 years, respectively. The mean GRI score significantly decreased from 35.66 ± 17.46 at baseline to 22.83 ± 9.08 at 6 months (P < 0.001). Although the proportion of those in the A zone was 20% at baseline, it increased to 42% at 6 months. AHCL also improved COGI from 72.59 ± 12.44 to 82.90 ± 7.72 (P < 0.001). Time in range (TIR) increased significantly from 70.54% to 80.51% (P < 0.001) at 6 months. Conclusion: AHCL provides not only an improvement in TIR but also a significant improvement in both GRI and COGI at 6 months. The incorporation of GRI and COGI alongside TIR may enhance the assessment of the glycemic profile by providing a more comprehensive and in-depth analysis.

Insulin Requirements for Basal and Auto-Correction Insulin Delivery in Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System: 4193 Days' Real-World Data of Children in Two Different Age Groups.

BACKGROUND: The insulin requirements of people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) can vary throughout the day due to factors such as biorhythm, exercise, and food intake. The MiniMed 780G system delivers micro boluses to adjust basal insulin and delivers auto-correction boluses to meet insulin needs when micro bolus increases are insufficient. Through analysis of MiniMed 780G data, this study investigates the variations in insulin requirements throughout the day. METHODS: 4193 days' pump and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data of 34 children using MiniMed 780G were collected from Medtronic CareLink. Micro and auto-correction boluses were analyzed on an hourly basis for two age groups: below nine years old and above nine years old. Glycemic metrics were analyzed based on International CGM consensus. RESULTS: The mean age was 12.3 years and mean duration of diabetes was 6.1 years. The mean time in range (TIR) and glucose management indicator (GMI) were 80.5% and 6.6%, respectively. The micro bolus (basal) ratio between 05.00 and 07.00 was significantly higher than the ratio between 10.00 and 03.00 (P < .01), whereas micro bolus was significantly lower between 19.00 and 21.00 than those between 00.00 and 10.00 (P < .001). The auto-correction ratio between 21.00 and 00.00 was significantly higher than those between 03.00-17.00 (P < .001) and 19.00-21.00 (P = .008), whereas auto-correction was significantly lower between 07.00 and 10.00 than those between 10.00 and 03.00 (P < .001). The micro bolus ratio was significantly higher in children below nine years old than in children above nine years old between 21.00-00.00 (P = .026) and 00.00-03.00 (P = .003). CONCLUSION: The basal insulin need follows a diurnal pattern with two significantly different periods-high between 00.00 and 10.00 and low between 10.00 and 00.00. The auto-correction rates are low between 05.00 and 10.00 and show an increasing pattern peaking between 21.00 and 00.00. These findings are compatible with the dawn and reverse dawn phenomena.

Benefits and Drawbacks of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Use in Young Children With Type 1 Diabetes: A Qualitative Study From a Country Where the CGM Is Not Reimbursed.

Investigating the daily life experiences of patients using Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) can highlight the benefits and barriers in using this system for people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with the caregivers of 10 children aged <9 years, all of whom had been treated for T1D and had used CGM >6 months. These interviews were analyzed using the content analysis approach and from these interviews, four meta themes emerged: metabolic control, barriers to CGM use, CGM use in daily life, and comparison with fingersticks. Families reported the following as benefits of CGM: pain relief, better hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia management, increased control over diet and social life, reduced worries at school and during the night, and convenience in entrusting the child to the care of others. Cost, concerns related to accuracy and reliability of measurements, insertion, adhesion and removal issues all emerged as barriers to CGM use. The most prominent issue was the economic burden of CGM. Families accept this burden, even though it is challenging, as their experiences in using CGM are positive and they feel that CGM is necessary for T1D management.

A comparison of glycemic parameters and their relationship with C-peptide and Proinsulin levels during partial remission and non-remission periods in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus - a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is a lack of data relating to glycemic parameters and their relationship with C-peptide (CP) and proinsulin (PI) during the partial remission period (PRP) in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D). The aim of this study was to evaluate glycemic parameters in children with T1D who are in the PRP using intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring systems (isCGMS) and to investigate any relationships between CP and PI levels. METHODS: The study included 21 children who were in the PRP and 31 children who were not. A cross-sectional, non-randomized study was performed. Demographic, clinical data were collected and 2 week- isCGMS data were retrieved. RESULTS: The Serum CP showed a positive correlation with time-in-range in the PRP (p:0.03), however PI showed no correlations with glycemic parameters in both periods. The Serum CP and PI levels and the PI:CP ratio were significantly higher in the PRP group than in the non-PRP group. In the non-PRP group, the PI level was below 0.1 pmol/L (which is the detectable limit) in only 2 of the 17 cases as compared with none in the PRP group. Similarly, only 2 of the 17 children in the non-PRP group had CP levels of less than 0.2 nmol / L, although both had detectable PI levels. Overall time-in-range (3. 9-1.0 mmol/L) was significantly high in the PRP group. In contrast, the mean sensor glucose levels, time spent in hyperglycemia, and coefficient of variation levels (32.2vs 40.5%) were significantly lower in the PRP group. CONCLUSIONS: Although the mean glucose and time in range during the PRP was better than that in the non-PRP group, the glycemic variability during this period was not as low as expected. While the CP levels showed an association with TIR during the PRP, there was no correlation between PI levels and glycemic parameters. Further studies are needed to determine if PI might prove to be a useful parameter in clinical follow-up.

An Evaluation of Glucagon Injection Anxiety and Its Association with the Fear of Hypoglycemia among the Parents of Children with Type 1 Diabetes

Objective: Hypoglycemia is a common acute complication of type 1 diabetes (T1D), which may cause seizure, loss of consciousness, and temporary motor or sensory impairment. Glucagon administration is an effective way of treating severe hypoglycemia, especially in a free-living setting. Nonetheless, families have difficulties in managing severe hypoglycemia due to their anxiety and challenges with current glucagon administration techniques. The aim of the current study was to explore the associations between parental fear of hypoglycemia (FoH) and their general anxiety level, and in particular, their attitudes towards and thoughts on glucagon administration. Methods: Parents of children with T1D completed questionnaires assessing background and clinical information, FoH, generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and parental anxiety for glucagon administration (PAGA). Results: Sixty-eight parents participated. Positive correlations were found between parental GAD-7 score and both FoH and the number of night-time blood glucose measurements and there was a negative correlation with the child's age. Parents mean self-evaluation score of their competence in glucagon administration was 6 (standard deviation±2.9) on a scale of 0 to 10. Unsurprisingly, this score was negatively correlated with the PAGA scores. There was no significant difference between children using continuous glucose monitoring system and self-monitoring of blood glucose in terms of parental FoH, anxiety and misconceptions about glucagon administration. Conclusion: The results showed that parents of children with T1D had anxiety and fear connected with hypoglycemia and glucagon administration. Structured and practical training should be implemented to increase parents' self-confidence including annual refresher training for home glucagon administration.

An evaluation of the knowledge and attitudes of school staff related to diabetes care at school: The 10th year of the "diabetes program at school" in Turkey.

The aim of this study was to measure the knowledge and attitudes of school staff regarding care in school for children with type 1 diabetes and to evaluate the contribution of the "Diabetes Program at School"(DPS). The data were collected through an online survey consisting of 55 questions, which included 39 knowledge and 16 attitude questions. The survey was delivered to the participating school staff via a link. A total of 55,677 people who completed 100% of the survey were included. Of the participants, 76% were teachers, 23% were school administrators and 0.1% were school nurses. 73% (40732) of the participants stated that they had heard about the "DPS". Of the participants who were aware of the DPS 75%, 50%, and 41% stated an increase in their knowledge level, self-confidence, and awareness respectively. Both scores were positively associated with being female and school nurse, having students with diabetes in the school, having been trained in childhood diabetes, being familiar with the program and being from the Western region of Turkey. The DPS is well known among school staff including teachers, school administrators, and school nurses. However, there are clear regional differences in the knowledge and attitude of school staff regarding diabetes care at school. Therefore, regional differences should be taken into account when planning the necessary interventions to prevent any further increase in the current inequalities. In addition, increasing the number of school nurses, together with strengthening the knowledge and attitude of school staff, can improve the level of diabetes care at school.