Health care organization and use of technological devices in people with diabetes in Italy: Results from a survey of the Working Group on Diabetes and Technology.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The use of technology offers recognized benefits to persons with diabetes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the organization of healthcare facilities, the composition of the diabetes team, and the use of Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion (CSII) and Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) in Italy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Diabetes care centers were asked to complete a web survey based on information collected in 2018. Sixty-one pediatric and 243 adult centers participated in the survey, accounting for 507,386 patients, mostly with type 2 diabetes (86.4%). Fifty-three percent of pediatric centers and 11% of adult centers reported a team composed of diabetologists, nurses, and psychologists. Overall, 13,204 patients (2.6%) were using CSII (95% with type 1 diabetes), and 28,936 (5.7%), were using CGM (74% with type 1 diabetes). When stratifying for the type of diabetes, 24% and 40.8% of patients with type 1 were using CSII and CGM, respectively, whereas low use of technology was reported for patients with type 2 and women with gestational diabetes. The percentage of adult and pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes on CSII and CGM was respectively 21% and 32%, and 35% and 57%. CONCLUSIONS: The spread of CGM and CSII increased in Italy between 2013 and 2018. However, the percentage of users is still lower than what is expected based on clinical indications for use of technology. The inadequate number of professionals in the diabetes care team and insufficient economic resources are relevant barriers to disseminating technology for diabetes management.

Risk for Coexistent Autoimmune Diseases in Familial and Sporadic Type 1 Diabetes is Related to Age at Diabetes Onset.

OBJECTIVE: Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is frequently associated with other autoimmune diseases (AIDs). Although most of T1D patients are sporadic cases (S-T1D), 10% to 15% have a familial form (F-T1D) involving 2 or more first-degree relatives. This study evaluated the effect of T1D family aggregation and age onset on AIDs occurrence. METHODS: In this observational, cross-sectional, case-control, single center study, we enrolled 115 F-T1D and 115 S-T1D patients matched for gender, age, T1D age onset, and duration. With respect to T1D age onset (before or after 18 years), both groups were further subdivided into young- or adult-onset F-T1D and young- or adult-onset S-T1D. The presence of organ-specific antibodies and/or overt AIDs was evaluated. RESULTS: The F-T1D group had a higher percentage of AIDs (29.8% vs 18.4%, P = .04) and a significant earlier onset of AIDs at Cox regression analysis (P = .04) than the S-T1D group. Based on multivariate analysis, the adult-onset F-T1D subgroup had the highest prevalence of both additional organ-specific antibodies (60.5%) and overt AIDs (34.9%), whereas the adult S-T1D subgroup was the least frequently involved (29.1% and 12.7%, respectively). In F-T1D patients, offsprings develop T1D and AIDs earlier than their parents do. CONCLUSIONS: In T1D patients, familial aggregation and adult-onset of T1D increase the risk for coexistent AIDs. These clinical predictors could guide clinicians to address T1D patients for the screening of T1D-related AIDs.

Integrated insulin pump therapy with continuous glucose monitoring for improved adherence: technology update.

Insulin pump therapy combined with real-time continuous glucose monitoring, known as sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy, has been shown to improve metabolic control and to reduce the rate of hypoglycemia in adults with type 1 diabetes compared to multiple daily injections or standard continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Glycemic variability is also reduced in patients on SAP therapy. This approach allows patients to monitor their glucose levels being informed of glycemic concentration and trend. Trained diabetic patients, therefore, can appropriately modify insulin infusion and/or carbohydrate intake in order to prevent hypo- or hyperglycemia. For these reasons, SAP therapy is now considered the gold standard for type 1 diabetes treatment. To be clinically effective, however, devices and techniques using advanced technology should not only have the potential to theoretically ameliorate metabolic control, but also be well accepted by patients in terms of satisfaction and health-related quality of life, because these factors will improve treatment adherence and consequently overall outcome. SAP therapy is generally well tolerated by patients; however, many clinical trials have identified significant noncompliance in the use of this device, most notably in the pediatric and adolescent populations. In this review we aim to analyze the main reasons for good or poor adherence to SAP therapy and to provide useful tips in order to fully benefit from this kind of novel therapeutic approach.

Efficacy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring on glycaemic control and glucose variability in type 1 diabetic patients treated with either insulin pumps or multiple insulin injection therapy: a randomized controlled crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in T1D patients treated with insulin pump therapy or multiple daily insulin therapy. METHODS: Twenty adult patients (ten insulin pump therapy and ten multiple daily insulin) with poor glycaemic control (HbA1c > 8.0%) were randomized into two groups for 6 months: the continuous glucose monitoring arm (using real-time continuous glucose monitoring) and the SMBG arm. After 2 months of wash-out, the participants crossed over. The primary outcome was HbA1c reduction. The secondary outcomes were hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia risk assessment (area under the curve < 70 mg/dL/day and AUC > 200 mg/dL/day, respectively) and glucose variability. RESULTS: Fourteen patients (eight multiple daily insulin, six insulin pump therapy) used continuous glucose monitoring appropriately (at least 40% of the time). In these patients, the improvement in glycaemic control was more evident during the real-time continuous glucose monitoring period (7.76% ± 0.4 vs 8.54% ± 0.4, p < 0.05) than during the self-monitoring of blood glucose period (8.42% ± 0.4 vs 8.56% ± 0.5, p = 0.2). Better results with continuous glucose monitoring were observed in patients using multiple daily insulin with greater improvement in both glycaemic control (7.71% ± 0.2 vs 8.58% ± 0.2, p < 0.05) and glucose variability and with a marked reduction in the risk of both hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring improved glycometabolic control in T1D patients. The effects of continuous glucose monitoring were more evident in patients under multiple daily insulin treatment, compared with insulin pump therapy. Glucose variability, in addition to glycaemic control, was improved in compliant diabetic patients.