Depressive symptoms and glycemic control in adolescents with type 1 diabetes

OBJECTIVE—To determine whether the association between depressive symptoms and glycemic control is mediated by blood glucose monitoring (BGM). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—A total of 276 adolescents with type 1 diabetes (mean age ± SD, 15.6 ± 1.4 years) completed a measure of depressive symptoms. Sociodemographic and family characteristics were obtained from caregivers. BGM frequency and glycemic control were obtained at a clinic visit. RESULTS—Separate regression analyses revealed that depressive symptoms were associated with lower BGM frequency (B = −0.03; P = 0.04) and higher A1C (B = 0.03; P = 0.05) and that lower BGM frequency was associated with higher A1C (B = −0.39; P < 0.001). With depressive symptoms and BGM frequency included together, only BGM frequency was associated with A1C and depressive symptoms became nonsignificant (B = 0.02; P = 0.19). The Sobel test was significant (Z = 1.96; P < 0.05) and showed that 38% of the depression-A1C link can be explained by BGM. CONCLUSIONS—BGM is a mediator between depressive symptoms and glycemic control in adolescents with type 1 diabetes

Optimizing the use of continuous glucose monitoring in young children with type 1 diabetes with an adaptive study design and multiple randomizations

Parents of young children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) experience unique, developmental challenges in managing their child's T1D, resulting in psychosocial distress. Only a small portion of young children reach glucose goals and adherence to diabetes devices that help improve T1D management have historically been low in this population. The purpose of this study is to test four interventions that couple developmentally tailored behavioral supports with education to optimize use of diabetes devices, improve glucose control, and reduce psychosocial distress for parents of young children with T1D. The study team designed four behavioral interventions, two aimed at improving glucose control and two aimed at optimizing use of diabetes devices. The goal of this paper is to describe the behavioral interventions developed for this study, including the results of a pilot test, and describe the methods and analysis plan to test this intervention strategy with ninety participants in a large-scale, randomized trial using a sequential multiple assignment randomization trial (SMART) design. A SMART design will permit a clinically relevant evaluation of the intervention strategy, as it allows multiple randomizations based on individualized assessments throughout the study instead of a fixed intervention dose seen in most traditional randomized controlled trials

Assessing the efficacy, safety and utility of closed-loop insulin delivery compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in very young children with type 1 diabetes (KidsAP02 study): an open-label, multicentre, multinational, randomised cross-over study protocol

Introduction: Diabetes management in very young children remains challenging. Glycaemic targets are achieved at the expense of high parental diabetes management burden and frequent hypoglycaemia, impacting quality of life for the whole family. Our objective is to assess whether automated insulin delivery can improve glycaemic control and alleviate the burden of diabetes management in this particular age group. Methods and analysis: The study adopts an open-label, multinational, multicentre, randomised, crossover design and aims to randomise 72 children aged 1-7 years with type 1 diabetes on insulin pump therapy. Following screening, participants will receive training on study insulin pump and study continuous glucose monitoring devices. Participants will be randomised to 16-week use of the hybrid closed-loop system (intervention period) or to 16-week use of sensor-augmented pump therapy (control period) with 1-4 weeks washout period before crossing over to the other arm. The order of the two study periods will be random. The primary endpoint is the between-group difference in time spent in the target glucose range from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L based on sensor glucose readings during the 16-week study periods. Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Key secondary endpoints are between group differences in time spent above and below target glucose range, glycated haemoglobin and average sensor glucose. Participants' and caregivers' experiences will be evaluated using questionnaires and qualitative interviews, and sleep quality will be assessed. A health economic analysis will be performed. Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval has been obtained from Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee (UK), Ethics Committees of the University of Innsbruck, the University of Vienna and the University of Graz (Austria), Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Leipzig (Germany) and Comité National d'Ethique de Recherche (Luxembourg). The results will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations

Consensus Recommendations for the Use of Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) Technologies in Clinical Practice

International audienceThe significant and growing global prevalence of diabetes continues to challenge people with diabetes (PwD), healthcare providers and payers. While maintaining near-normal glucose levels has been shown to prevent or delay the progression of the long-term complications of diabetes, a significant proportion of PwD are not attaining their glycemic goals. During the past six years, we have seen tremendous advances in automated insulin delivery (AID) technologies. Numerous randomized controlled trials and real-world studies have shown that the use of AID systems is safe and effective in helping PwD achieve their long-term glycemic goals while reducing hypoglycemia risk. Thus, AID systems have recently become an integral part of diabetes management. However, recommendations for using AID systems in clinical settings have been lacking. Such guided recommendations are critical for AID success and acceptance. All clinicians working with PwD need to become familiar with the available systems in order to eliminate disparities in diabetes quality of care. This report provides much-needed guidance for clinicians who are interested in utilizing AIDs and presents a comprehensive listing of the evidence payers should consider when determining eligibility criteria for AID insurance coverage