I Kosteria1, A Schwandt2,3, E Davis4, S Jali5, M Prieto6, D Rottembourg7. 1. Diabetes Centre, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, First Department of Paediatrics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Medical School, Aghia Sophia Children's Hospital, Athens, Greece. 2. Institute of Epidemiology and Medical Biometry, ZIBMT, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany. 3. German Centre for Diabetes Research, Munich-Neuherberg, Germany. 4. Centre for Child Health Research, Telethon Kids Institute, University of Western, Perth, Australia. 5. J. N. Medical College (KAHER) and the KLE Diabetes Centre, KLES Dr Prabhakar Kore Hospital, Belgaum, India. 6. Hospital de Pediatria Garrahan, Buenos Aires, Argentina. 7. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Sherbrooke University, Sherbrooke, Canada.
Abstract
AIMS: To examine the effect of pump vs injection therapy on the lipid profile of children with Type 1 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of the lipid profile of children aged ≤ 18 years with Type 1 diabetes mellitus from SWEET, an international diabetes registry, was conducted with a focus on the effect of treatment regimen. Dyslipidaemia was defined as LDL cholesterol ≥2.6 mmol/l or non-HDL cholesterol ≥3.1 mmol/l. LDL and non-HDL cholesterol values among 14 290 children (52% boys, 51% receiving pump therapy) from 60 SWEET centres were analysed by linear and logistic regression analysis adjusted for sex, age, diabetes duration, HbA1c and BMI-standard deviation score group, region, and common interactions between age, sex, HbA1c and BMI. RESULTS: This study confirmed the established associations of increased lipids with female sex, age, diabetes duration, HbA1c and BMI. LDL and non-HDL cholesterol levels were lower in the pump therapy group compared to the injection therapy group [LDL cholesterol: injection therapy 2.44 mmol/l (95% CI 2.42 to 2.46) vs pump therapy 2.39 mmol/l (95% CI 2.37-2.41), P<0.001; non-HDL cholesterol: injection therapy 2.88 mmol/l (95% CI 2.86 to 2.90) vs pump therapy 2.80 mmol/l (95% CI 2.78-2.82), both P<0.0001]. Similarly, the odds ratios for LDL cholesterol ≥2.6 mmol/l [0.89 (95% CI 0.82-0.97)] and non-HDL cholesterol ≥3.1 mmol/l [0.85 (0.78 to 0.93)] were significantly lower in the pump therapy group, even after all adjustments. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that pump therapy is associated with a better lipid profile.
AIMS: To examine the effect of pump vs injection therapy on the lipid profile of children with Type 1 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of the lipid profile of children aged ≤ 18 years with Type 1 diabetes mellitus from SWEET, an international diabetes registry, was conducted with a focus on the effect of treatment regimen. Dyslipidaemia was defined as LDL cholesterol ≥2.6 mmol/l or non-HDL cholesterol ≥3.1 mmol/l. LDL and non-HDL cholesterol values among 14 290 children (52% boys, 51% receiving pump therapy) from 60 SWEET centres were analysed by linear and logistic regression analysis adjusted for sex, age, diabetes duration, HbA1c and BMI-standard deviation score group, region, and common interactions between age, sex, HbA1c and BMI. RESULTS: This study confirmed the established associations of increased lipids with female sex, age, diabetes duration, HbA1c and BMI. LDL and non-HDL cholesterol levels were lower in the pump therapy group compared to the injection therapy group [LDL cholesterol: injection therapy 2.44 mmol/l (95% CI 2.42 to 2.46) vs pump therapy 2.39 mmol/l (95% CI 2.37-2.41), P<0.001; non-HDL cholesterol: injection therapy 2.88 mmol/l (95% CI 2.86 to 2.90) vs pump therapy 2.80 mmol/l (95% CI 2.78-2.82), both P<0.0001]. Similarly, the odds ratios for LDL cholesterol ≥2.6 mmol/l [0.89 (95% CI 0.82-0.97)] and non-HDL cholesterol ≥3.1 mmol/l [0.85 (0.78 to 0.93)] were significantly lower in the pump therapy group, even after all adjustments. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that pump therapy is associated with a better lipid profile.