High diabetes-specific distress among adults with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia despite widespread use of sensor technology.

AIMS: Impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IAH) has been associated with increased diabetes distress and use of sensor technology can reduce diabetes distress. The aim of this study was to examine diabetes-specific distress (emotions, cognitions, behaviours) in relation to IAH status and use of glucose sensors in people with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Individuals with type 1 diabetes from an academic diabetes outpatient clinic completed the Clarke questionnaire (to assess hypoglycaemic awareness), Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID-5), Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey-II (HFS-II), Attitudes to Awareness of Hypoglycaemia Survey (A2A), Nijmegen Clinical Screening Instrument Survey (NCSI) and Hyperglycaemia Avoidance Scale (HAS). RESULTS: Of the 422 participants (51.9% male, diabetes duration 30 [16-40] years, HbA1c 60 ± 11 mmol/mol [7.6 ± 1.0%], 351 [88.2%] used a glucose sensor; 82 [19.4%]) had IAH. Compared to individuals with normal awareness, those with IAH more often had PAID-5 scores ≥8 (35.4% vs. 21.5%, p = 0.008) and higher scores on all HFS-II subscores (total [40.2 ± 21.5 vs. 27.9 ± 17.2, p < 0.001]), HFS-II behaviour (18.5 ± 10.0 vs. 15.1 ± 8.0, p = 0.005), HFS-II worry (21.8 ± 13.5 vs. 12.7 ± 10.9, p < 0.001), HAS worries (17.5 ± 7.3 vs. 14.3 ± 7.0, p < 0.001) and NCSI hypoglycaemia items. HAS behaviour, A2A and NCSI hyperglycaemia scores did not differ between individuals with or without IAH. Restricting the analyses to individuals using a glucose sensor did not materially change the results. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes-specific distress remains a major problem among individuals with type 1 diabetes, particularly those with IAH, despite the widespread use of (intermittently scanned) sensor technology. Further studies are needed to examine strategies to lower diabetes-specific distress in individuals with IAH.

Effects of dalteparin on anti-Xa activities cannot be predicted in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Critically ill COVID-19 patients are at high risk of thromboembolic events despite routine-dosed low-molecular-weight heparin thromboprophylaxis. However, in recent randomized trials increased-intensity thromboprophylaxis seemed futile and possibly even harmful. In this explorative pharmacokinetic (PK) study we measured anti-Xa activities on frequent timepoints in 15 critically ill COVID-19 patients receiving dalteparin and performed PK analysis by nonlinear mixed-effect modelling. A linear one-compartment model with first-order kinetics provided a good fit. However, wide interindividual variation in dalteparin absorption (variance 78%) and clearance (variance 34%) was observed, unexplained by routine clinical covariates. Using the final PK model for Monte Carlo simulations, we predicted increased-intensity dalteparin to result in anti-Xa activities well over prophylactic targets (0.2-0.4 IU/mL) in the majority of patients. Therapeutic-intensity dalteparin results in supratherapeutic anti-Xa levels (target 0.6-1.0 IU/mL) in 19% of patients and subtherapeutic levels in 22%. Therefore, anti-Xa measurements should guide high-intensity dalteparin in critically ill COVID-19 patients.