Management of type 1 diabetes with a very low–Carbohydrate diet: A word of caution

The public often looks to nutrition to improve health, and reporting on nutrition findings from the scientific literature in the popular media often reveals unproven benefits. Lennerz et al present data collected via an online community and conclude that exceptional glycemic control in type 1 diabetes with a low risk for adverse events is possible with a VLCD, and research is needed to confirm the generalizability of these findings. Although it may be true that a VLCD can be useful, we find the study of Lennerz et al to fall well short of the level of scientific evidence that merits the media and professional attention it seems to have garnered

Assessing patient-reported outcomes for automated insulin delivery systems: the psychometric properties of the INSPIRE measures.

AIM: Participants in clinical trials assessing automated insulin delivery systems report perceived benefits and burdens that reflect their experiences and may predict their likelihood of uptake and continued use of this novel technology. Despite the importance of understanding their perspectives, there are no available validated and reliable measures assessing the psychosocial aspects of automated insulin delivery systems. The present study assesses the initial psychometric properties of the INSPIRE measures, which were developed for youth and adults with Type 1 diabetes, as well as parents and partners. METHODS: Data from 292 youth, 159 adults, 150 parents of youth and 149 partners of individuals recruited from the Type 1 Diabetes Exchange Registry were analysed. Participants completed INSPIRE questionnaires and measures of quality of life, fear of hypoglycaemia, diabetes distress, glucose monitoring satisfaction. Exploratory factor analysis assessed factor structures. Associations between INSPIRE scores and other measures, HbA1c , and technology use assessed concurrent and discriminant validity. RESULTS: Youth, adult, parent and partner measures assess positive expectancies of automated insulin delivery systems. Measures range from 17 to 22 items and are reliable (α = 0.95-0.97). Youth, adult and parent measures are unidimensional; the partner measure has a two-factor structure (perceptions of impact on partners versus the person with diabetes). Measures showed concurrent and discriminant validity. CONCLUSIONS: INSPIRE measures assessing the positive expectancies of automated insulin delivery systems for youth, adults, parents and partners have meaningful factor structures and are internally consistent. The developmentally sensitive INSPIRE measures offer added value as clinical trials test newer systems, systems become commercially available and clinicians initiate using these systems