Roque Cardona-Hernandez1, Anke Schwandt2,3, Hessa Alkandari4, Heiko Bratke5, Agata Chobot6, Nicole Coles7, Sarah Corathers8, Damla Goksen9, Peter Goss10, Zineb Imane11, Katrin Nagl12, Stephen M P O'Riordan13, Craig Jefferies. 1. Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Spain rcardona@hsjdbcn.org. 2. Institute of Epidemiology and Medical Biometry, Zentralinstitut fuer Biomedizinische Technik, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany. 3. German Center for Diabetes Research (DZD), Munich-Neuherberg, Germany. 4. Dasman Diabetes Institute, Kuwait City, Kuwait. 5. Department of Pediatrics, Haugesund Hospital, Fonna Health Trust, Haugesund, Norway. 6. Department of Pediatrics, Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Opole, Opole, Poland. 7. Markham Stouffville Hospital, Markham, Ontario, Canada. 8. Division of Endocrinology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH. 9. Faculty of Medicine, Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes, Ege University, İzmir, Turkey. 10. Team Diabetes, Geelong, Victoria, Australia. 11. Division of Pediatric Diabetology, Children's Hospital of Rabat, Mohammed V University, Rabat, Morocco. 12. Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 13. The Department of Paediatrics and Endocrinology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Insulin delivery methods, glucose-monitoring modalities, and related outcomes were examined in a large, international, diverse cohort of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes from the Better Control in Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes: Working to Create Centers of Reference (SWEET) -Registry. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants with type 1 diabetes of ≥1 year, aged ≤18 years, and who had documented pump or sensor usage during the period August 2017-July 2019 were stratified into four categories: injections-no sensor (referent); injections + sensor; pump-no sensor; and pump + sensor. HbA1c and proportion of patients with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) or severe hypoglycemia (SH) were analyzed; linear and logistic regression models adjusted for demographics, region, and gross domestic product per capita were applied. RESULTS: Data of 25,654 participants were analyzed. The proportions of participants (adjusted HbA1c data) by study group were as follows: injections-no sensor group, 37.44% (8.72; 95% CI 8.68-8.75); injections + sensor group, 14.98% (8.30; 95% CI 8.25-8.35); pump-no sensor group, 17.22% (8.07; 95% CI 8.03-8.12); and pump + sensor group, 30.35% (7.81; 95% CI 7.77-7.84). HbA1c was lower in all categories of participants who used a pump and/or sensor compared with the injections-no sensor treatment method (P < 0.001). The proportion of DKA episodes was lower in participants in the pump + sensor (1.98%; 95% CI 1.64-2.48; P < 0.001) and the pump-no sensor (2.02%; 95% CI 1.64-2.48; P < 0.05) groups when compared with those in the injections-no sensor group (2.91%; 95% CI 2.59-3.31). The proportion of participants experiencing SH was lower in pump-no sensor group (1.10%; 95% CI 0.85-1.43; P < 0.001) but higher in the injections + sensor group (4.25%; 95% CI 3.65-4.95; P < 0.001) compared with the injections-no sensor group (2.35%; 95% CI 2.04-2.71). CONCLUSIONS: Lower HbA1c and fewer DKA episodes were observed in participants using either a pump or continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or both. Pump use was associated with a lower rate of SH. Across SWEET centers, use of pumps and CGM is increasing. The concomitant use of pump and CGM was associated with an additive benefit.
OBJECTIVE:Insulin delivery methods, glucose-monitoring modalities, and related outcomes were examined in a large, international, diverse cohort of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes from the Better Control in Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes: Working to Create Centers of Reference (SWEET) -Registry. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants with type 1 diabetes of ≥1 year, aged ≤18 years, and who had documented pump or sensor usage during the period August 2017-July 2019 were stratified into four categories: injections-no sensor (referent); injections + sensor; pump-no sensor; and pump + sensor. HbA1c and proportion of patients with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) or severe hypoglycemia (SH) were analyzed; linear and logistic regression models adjusted for demographics, region, and gross domestic product per capita were applied. RESULTS: Data of 25,654 participants were analyzed. The proportions of participants (adjusted HbA1c data) by study group were as follows: injections-no sensor group, 37.44% (8.72; 95% CI 8.68-8.75); injections + sensor group, 14.98% (8.30; 95% CI 8.25-8.35); pump-no sensor group, 17.22% (8.07; 95% CI 8.03-8.12); and pump + sensor group, 30.35% (7.81; 95% CI 7.77-7.84). HbA1c was lower in all categories of participants who used a pump and/or sensor compared with the injections-no sensor treatment method (P < 0.001). The proportion of DKA episodes was lower in participants in the pump + sensor (1.98%; 95% CI 1.64-2.48; P < 0.001) and the pump-no sensor (2.02%; 95% CI 1.64-2.48; P < 0.05) groups when compared with those in the injections-no sensor group (2.91%; 95% CI 2.59-3.31). The proportion of participants experiencing SH was lower in pump-no sensor group (1.10%; 95% CI 0.85-1.43; P < 0.001) but higher in the injections + sensor group (4.25%; 95% CI 3.65-4.95; P < 0.001) compared with the injections-no sensor group (2.35%; 95% CI 2.04-2.71). CONCLUSIONS: Lower HbA1c and fewer DKA episodes were observed in participants using either a pump or continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or both. Pump use was associated with a lower rate of SH. Across SWEET centers, use of pumps and CGM is increasing. The concomitant use of pump and CGM was associated with an additive benefit.
Authors: Ulrike Schierloh; Gloria A Aguayo; Anna Schritz; Muriel Fichelle; Cindy De Melo Dias; Michel T Vaillant; Ohad Cohen; Inge Gies; Carine de Beaufort Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2022-05-31 Impact factor: 6.055
Authors: Stephanie R Johnson; Deborah J Holmes-Walker; Melissa Chee; Arul Earnest; Timothy W Jones; Maria Craig; Kym Anderson; Geoff Ambler; Helen Barrett; Jenny Batch; Philip Bergman; Fergus Cameron; Peter Colman; Louise Conwell; Chris Cooper; Jennifer Couper; Elizabeth Davis; Martin de Bock; Kim Donaghue; Jan Fairchild; Gerry Fegan; Spiros Fourlanos; Sarah Glastras; Leonie Gray; Shane Hamblin; Paul Hofman; Dianne Jane Holmes-Walker; Neville Howard; Michelle Jack; Steven James; Craig Jefferies; Stephanie Johnson; Jeff Kao; Bruce R King; Antony Lafferty; Michelle Martin; Robert McCrossin; Mark Pascoe; Ryan Paul; Dorota Pawlak; Alexia Peña; Sarah Price; Darrell Price; Christine Rodda; David Simmons; Richard Sinnott; Alan Sive; Carmel Smart; Monique Stone; Steve Stranks; Elaine Tham; Charles Verge; Glenn Ward; Ben Wheeler; Judy Williams; Helen Woodhead; Nick Woolfield; Anthony Zimmermann Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Arcelia Arrieta; Tadej Battelino; Andrea E Scaramuzza; Julien Da Silva; Javier Castañeda; Toni L Cordero; John Shin; Ohad Cohen Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 6.408