A contrast between children and adolescents with excellent and poor control: the T1D exchange clinic registry experience

ObjectivesOptimizing glycemic control in pediatric type 1 diabetes (T1D) is essential to minimizing long-term risk of complications. We used the T1D Exchange database from 58 US diabetes clinics to identify differences in diabetes management characteristics among children categorized as having excellent vs. poor glycemic control.MethodsAmong registry participants 6-17 yr old with diabetes duration ≥ 2 yr, those with excellent control [(A1c <7%)(53 mmol/mol) (N = 588)] were compared with those with poor control [(A1c ≥ 9% )(75 mmol/mol) (N = 2684)] using logistic regression.ResultsThe excellent and poor control groups differed substantially in diabetes management (p < 0.001 for all) with more of the excellent control group using insulin pumps, performing blood glucose monitoring ≥ 5 ×/d, missing fewer boluses, bolusing before meals rather than at the time of or after a meal, using meal-specific insulin:carbohydrate ratios, checking their blood glucose prior to giving meal time insulin, giving insulin for daytime snacks, giving more bolus insulin, and using a lower mean total daily insulin dose than those in poor control. After adjusting for demographic and socioeconomic factors, diabetes management characteristics were still strongly associated with good vs. poor control. Notably, frequency of severe hypoglycemia was similar between the groups while DKA was more common in the poorly controlled group.ConclusionsChildren with excellent glycemic control tend to exhibit markedly different diabetes self-management techniques than those with poor control. This knowledge may further inform diabetes care providers and patients about specific characteristics and behaviors that can be augmented to potentially improve glycemic control

A Randomized Clinical Trial Assessing Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Use With Standardized Education With or Without a Family Behavioral Intervention Compared With Fingerstick Blood Glucose Monitoring in Very Young Children With Type 1 Diabetes.

ObjectiveThis study evaluated the effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) combined with family behavioral intervention (CGM+FBI) and CGM alone (Standard-CGM) on glycemic outcomes and parental quality of life compared with blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in children ages 2 to <8 years with type 1 diabetes.Research design and methodsThis was a multicenter (N = 14), 6-month, randomized controlled trial including 143 youth 2 to <8 years of age with type 1 diabetes. Primary analysis included treatment group comparisons of percent time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) across follow-up visits.ResultsApproximately 90% of participants in the CGM groups used CGM ≥6 days/week at 6 months. Between-group TIR comparisons showed no significant changes: CGM+FBI vs. BGM 3.2% (95% CI -0.5, 7.0), Standard-CGM vs. BGM 0.5% (-2.6 to 3.6), CGM+FBI vs. Standard-CGM 2.7% (-0.6, 6.1). Mean time with glucose level <70 mg/dL was reduced from baseline to follow-up in the CGM+FBI (from 5.2% to 2.6%) and Standard-CGM (5.8% to 2.5%) groups, compared with 5.4% to 5.8% with BGM (CGM+FBI vs. BGM, P < 0.001, and Standard-CGM vs. BGM, P < 0.001). No severe hypoglycemic events occurred in the CGM+FBI group, one occurred in the Standard-CGM group, and five occurred in the BGM group. CGM+FBI parents reported greater reductions in diabetes burden and fear of hypoglycemia compared with Standard-CGM (P = 0.008 and 0.04) and BGM (P = 0.02 and 0.002).ConclusionsCGM used consistently over a 6-month period in young children with type 1 diabetes did not improve TIR but did significantly reduce time in hypoglycemia. The FBI benefited parental well-being

Time to Peak Glucose and Peak C-Peptide During the Progression to Type 1 Diabetes in the Diabetes Prevention Trial and TrialNet Cohorts

OBJECTIVE To assess the progression of type 1 diabetes using time to peak glucose or C-peptide during oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) in autoantibody-positive relatives of people with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We examined 2-h OGTTs of participants in the Diabetes Prevention Trial Type 1 (DPT-1) and TrialNet Pathway to Prevention (PTP) studies. We included 706 DPT-1 participants (mean ± SD age, 13.84 ± 9.53 years; BMI Z-score, 0.33 ± 1.07; 56.1% male) and 3,720 PTP participants (age, 16.01 ± 12.33 years; BMI Z-score, 0.66 ± 1.3; 49.7% male). Log-rank testing and Cox regression analyses with adjustments (age, sex, race, BMI Z-score, HOMA-insulin resistance, and peak glucose/C-peptide levels, respectively) were performed. RESULTS In each of DPT-1 and PTP, higher 5-year diabetes progression risk was seen in those with time to peak glucose >30 min and time to peak C-peptide >60 min (P < 0.001 for all groups), before and after adjustments. In models examining strength of association with diabetes development, associations were greater for time to peak C-peptide versus peak C-peptide value (DPT-1: χ2 = 25.76 vs. χ2 = 8.62; PTP: χ2 = 149.19 vs. χ2 = 79.98; all P < 0.001). Changes in the percentage of individuals with delayed glucose and/or C-peptide peaks were noted over time. CONCLUSIONS In two independent at-risk populations, we show that those with delayed OGTT peak times for glucose or C-peptide are at higher risk of diabetes development within 5 years, independent of peak levels. Moreover, time to peak C-peptide appears more predictive than the peak level, suggesting its potential use as a specific biomarker for diabetes progression