Sensor-augmented pump therapy from the diagnosis of childhood type 1 diabetes: results of the Paediatric Onset Study (ONSET) after 12 months of treatment.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The value of managing children with type 1 diabetes using a combination of insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring starting from diagnosis for improving subsequent glycaemic control and preserving residual beta cell function was determined. METHODS: A total of 160 children (aged 1-16 years, mean ± SD: 8.7 ± 4.4 years; 47.5% girls) were randomised to receive insulin pump treatment with continuous glucose monitoring or conventional self-monitoring blood glucose measurements. The primary outcome was the level of HbA(1c) after 12 months. Other analyses included fasting C-peptide, glycaemic variability, sensor usage, adverse events, children's health-related quality of life and parent's wellbeing. RESULTS: HbA(1c) was not significantly different between the two groups, but patients with regular sensor use had lower values (mean 7.1%, 95% CI 6.8-7.4%) compared with the combined group with no or low sensor usage (mean 7.6%, 95% CI 7.3-7.9%; p=0.032). At 12 months, glycaemic variability was lower in the sensor group (mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions 80.2 ± 26.2 vs 92.0 ± 33.7; p=0.037). Higher C-peptide concentrations were seen in sensor-treated 12- to 16-year-old patients (0.25 ± 0.12 nmol/l) compared with those treated with insulin pump alone (0.19 ± 0.07 nmol/l; p=0.033). Severe hypoglycaemia was reported only in the group without sensors (four episodes). CONCLUSION/INTERPRETATION: Sensor-augmented pump therapy starting from the diagnosis of type 1 diabetes can be associated with less decline in fasting C-peptide particularly in older children, although regular sensor use is a prerequisite for improved glycaemic control. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN.org ISRCTN05450731 FUNDING: Medtronic International Trading Sàrl, Tolochenaz, Switzerland.

Establishing glycaemic control with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: experience of the PedPump Study in 17 countries.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: To assess the use of paediatric continuous subcutaneous infusion (CSII) under real-life conditions by analysing data recorded for up to 90 days and relating them to outcome. METHODS: Pump programming data from patients aged 0-18 years treated with CSII in 30 centres from 16 European countries and Israel were recorded during routine clinical visits. HbA(1c) was measured centrally. RESULTS: A total of 1,041 patients (age: 11.8 +/- 4.2 years; diabetes duration: 6.0 +/- 3.6 years; average CSII duration: 2.0 +/- 1.3 years; HbA(1c): 8.0 +/- 1.3% [means +/- SD]) participated. Glycaemic control was better in preschool (n = 142; 7.5 +/- 0.9%) and pre-adolescent (6-11 years, n = 321; 7.7 +/- 1.0%) children than in adolescent patients (12-18 years, n = 578; 8.3 +/- 1.4%). There was a significant negative correlation between HbA(1c) and daily bolus number, but not between HbA(1c) and total daily insulin dose. The use of <6.7 daily boluses was a significant predictor of an HbA(1c) level >7.5%. The incidence of severe hypoglycaemia and ketoacidosis was 6.63 and 6.26 events per 100 patient-years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: This large paediatric survey of CSII shows that glycaemic targets can be frequently achieved, particularly in young children, and the incidence of acute complications is low. Adequate substitution of basal and prandial insulin is associated with a better HbA(1c).

Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: We investigated the potential effects of the Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (CGMS), as compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose, on glycaemic control in children with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched throughout June 2007: MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. Additional references were obtained from reviewed articles. Only randomised controlled trials were included. RESULTS: We included five trials involving 131 type 1 diabetic patients in the study. Combined data from all trials showed that the CGMS did not significantly reduce HbA1c levels compared with control groups. The pooled weighted mean difference was -0.02% (95% CI -0.29 to 0.25) with a fixed model and remained insignificant in the random effect model. Sensitivity analysis determined that the findings were stable. There was a trend towards a longer time under the CGMS curve for glucose <3.89 mmol/l in the CGMS group compared with the control group (mean difference 49.00 min, 95% CI -18.00 to 116.00). The CGMS significantly increased the number of insulin dose changes per patient per month for those managed with CGMS compared with the control groups (mean difference 6.3 changes, 95% CI 2.88-9.72). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: The Continuous Glucose Monitoring System is not better than self-monitoring of blood glucose with regard to improvement of metabolic control among type 1 diabetic children. However, due to the small number of participants and methodological limitations of the studies included, findings of this meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution.