Computerized Automated Reminder Diabetes System (CARDS): E-Mail and SMS Cell Phone Text Messaging Reminders to Support Diabetes Management

Abstract Background: Cell phone text messaging, via the Short Messaging Service (SMS), offers the promise of a highly portable, well-accepted, and inexpensive modality for engaging youth and young adults in the management of their diabetes. This pilot and feasibility study compared two-way SMS cell phone messaging with e-mail reminders that were directed at encouraging blood glucose (BG) monitoring. Methods: Forty insulin-treated adolescents and young adults with diabetes were randomized to receive electronic reminders to check their BG levels via cell phone text messaging or e-mail reminders for a 3-month pilot study. Electronic messages were automatically generated, and participant replies with BG results were processed by the locally developed Computerized Automated Reminder Diabetes System (CARDS). Participants set their schedule for reminders on the secure CARDS website where they could also enter and review BG data. Results: Of the 40 participants, 22 were randomized to receive cell phone text message reminders and 18 to receive e-mail reminders; 18 in the cell phone group and 11 in the e-mail group used the system. Compared to the e-mail group, users in the cell phone group received more reminders (180.4 vs. 106.6 per user) and responded with BG results significantly more often (30.0 vs. 6.9 per user, P = 0.04). During the first month cell phone users submitted twice as many BGs as e-mail users (27.2 vs. 13.8 per user); by month 3, usage waned. Conclusions: Cell phone text messaging to promote BG monitoring is a viable and acceptable option in adolescents and young adults with diabetes. However, maintaining interest levels for prolonged intervals remains a challenge.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78128/1/dia.2008.0022.pd

ACE and non-ACE pathways in the renal vascular response to RAS interruption in type 1 diabetes mellitus

ACE and non-ACE pathways in the renal vascular response to RAS interruption in type 1 diabetes mellitus.BackgroundThe enormous contribution of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) interruption with ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) in the treatment of diabetic nephropathy has led to interest in the factors involved in angiotensin II (Ang II) generation. In normal subjects, RAS interruption using an ARB produced a 50% greater renal plasma flow (RPF) rise than with an ACE inhibitor, suggesting a substantial contribution of non-ACE pathways. Moreover, immunohistochemistry studies in kidneys of overtly proteinuric diabetic subjects showed up-regulation of chymase, an alternative Ang II-generating enzyme. Our aim was to determine the degree to which the non-ACE pathways contribute to RAS activation in type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM).MethodsType 1DM patients (N = 37, 14 M/23 F; age 31 ± 2 years; DM duration 16 ± 1.7 years; HbA1c 7.7.0 ± 0.3%) were studied on a high-salt diet. They received captopril 25mg po one day and candesartan 16mg po the next day. RPF and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) were measured before and up to 4 hours after drug administration.ResultsBoth captopril and candesartan induced a significant rise in RPF (baseline vs. peak <0.0001 for both), and the rise was concordant for the 2 drugs (r = 0.77,P < 0.001). However, the RPF responses were not significantly different between the 2 drugs (captopril 72 ± 11mL/min/1.73m2, candesartan 75 ± 12,P = 0.841).ConclusionIn predominantly normoalbuminuric, normotensive type 1 DM, activation of the intrarenal RAS reflects a mechanism involving primarily the classic ACE pathway

Transition experiences and health care utilization among young adults with type 1 diabetes

Background: The purpose of this study was to describe the current status of adult diabetes care in young adults with type 1 diabetes and examine associations between health care transition experiences and care utilization. Methods: We developed a survey to assess transition characteristics and current care in young adults with type 1 diabetes. We mailed the survey to the last known address of young adults who had previously received diabetes care at a tertiary pediatric center. Results: Of 291 surveys sent, 83 (29%) were undeliverable and three (1%) were ineligible. Of 205 surveys delivered, 65 were returned (response rate 32%). Respondents (mean age 26.6 ± 3.0 years, 54% male, 91% Caucasian) transitioned to adult diabetes care at a mean age of 19.2 ± 2.8 years. Although 71% felt mostly/completely prepared for transition, only half received recommendations for a specific adult provider. Twenty-six percent reported gaps exceeding six months between pediatric and adult diabetes care. Respondents who made fewer than three diabetes visits in the year prior to transition (odds ratio [OR] 4.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2–16.5) or cited moving/relocation as the most important reason for transition (OR 6.3, 95% CI 1.3–31.5) were more likely to report gaps in care exceeding six months. Patients receiving current care from an adult endocrinologist (79%) were more likely to report at least two diabetes visits in the past year (OR 6.0, 95% CI 1.5–24.0) compared with those receiving diabetes care from a general internist/adult primary care doctor (17%). Two-thirds (66%) reported receiving all recommended diabetes screening tests in the previous year, with no difference according to provider type. Conclusion: In this sample, transition preparation was variable and one quarter reported gaps in obtaining adult diabetes care. Nevertheless, the majority endorsed currently receiving regular diabetes care, although visit frequency differed by provider type. Because locating patients after transition was incomplete, our findings suggest the need for standardized methods to track transitioning patients

Type 1 Diabetes Through the Life Span: A Position Statement of the American Diabetes Association

Type 1 diabetes is characterized by an immune-mediated depletion of β-cells that results in lifelong dependence on exogenous insulin. While both type 1 and type 2 diabetes result in hyperglycemia, the pathophysiology and etiology of the diseases are distinct and require us to consider each type of diabetes independently. As such, this position statement summarizes available data specific to the comprehensive care of individuals with type 1 diabetes. The goal is to enhance our ability to recognize and manage type 1 diabetes, to prevent its associated complications, and to eventually cure and prevent this disease. The exact number of individuals with type 1 diabetes around the world is not known, but in the U.S., there are estimated to be up to 3 million (1). Although it has long been called “juvenile diabetes” due to the more frequent and relatively straightforward diagnosis in children, the majority of individuals with type 1 diabetes are adults. Most children are referred and treated in tertiary centers, where clinical data are more readily captured. The SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study estimated that, in 2009, 18,436 U.S. youth were newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes (12,945 non-Hispanic white, 3,098 Hispanic, 2,070 non-Hispanic black, 276 Asian-Pacific Islander, and 47 American Indian) (2). Worldwide, ∼78,000 youth are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes annually. Incidence varies tremendously among countries: East Asians and American Indians have the lowest incidence rates (0.1–8 per 100,000/year) as compared with the Finnish who have the highest rates (>64.2 per 100,000/year) (3). In the U.S., the number of youth with type 1 diabetes was estimated to be 166,984 (4). The precise incidence of new-onset type 1 diabetes in those over 20 years of age is unknown. This may be due to the prolonged phase of onset and the subtleties in distinguishing the different

Nighttime is the worst time: Parental fear of hypoglycemia in young children with type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND: Fear of hypoglycemia is common in parents of young children with type 1 diabetes (T1D), but little is known about the specific fears that parents most often experience. Hypoglycemia fear has been associated with poorer glycemic control in older children, though not yet studied in a large cohort of very young children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Parents of 549 children <7 years (mean 5.2 ± 1.2 years [19% <3 years]) with a mean diabetes duration of 2.4 ± 1.0 years (range 1-6 years) and mean HbA1c 8.2% ± 1.1% (66 ± 12 mmol/mol) registered in the T1D Exchange completed the worry scale of the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey modified for parents (HFS-P). RESULTS: Mean parental fear of hypoglycemia worry score was 36.1 ± 23.1 (possible range 0-100), with most frequent worries related to the child having a low while asleep and the child not recognizing a low. The mean worry score was not associated with the child's age, glycemic control, or recent severe hypoglycemic event. Parental worries about lows while sleeping were significantly higher in pump users than non-users (61% vs. 45%; P < .001), and tended to be higher in CGM users than non-users (62% vs 51%; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: The greatest worries of parents of young children with T1D were related to hypoglycemia during sleep and other times/circumstances during which it would be difficult to detect hypoglycemia. Using advanced diabetes technologies may be an effort to temper fears about hypoglycemia during sleep, though the directionality of this relationship is undetermined. Additional studies can clarify this association and leverage use of diabetes technologies to improve glycemic control

A Practical Approach to Using Trend Arrows on the Dexcom G5 CGM System to Manage Children and Adolescents With Diabetes

After assessing previously published methods, we developed a practical approach to adjusting insulin doses using rtCGM trend arrows in pediatric patients with diabetes

“I’m essentially his pancreas”: Parent perceptions of diabetes burden and opportunities to reduce burden in the care of children <8 years old with type 1 diabetes

Background: Across all age groups, management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) places substantial responsibility and emotional burden upon families. This study explored parent perceptions of the burdens of caring for very young children with T1D. Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with parents (85% mothers) of 79 children with T1D, aged 1 to <8 years old, from four diverse pediatric diabetes clinical centers. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using hybrid thematic analysis to derive central themes. Results: Youth (77% White) had T1D for ≥6 months: age (M ± SD) 5.2 ± 1.5 years, diabetes duration 2.4 ± 1.3 years, and A1c 63 ± 10 mmol/mol (7.9 ± 0.9%); 66% used an insulin pump and 61% used CGM. Three major themes emerged related to diabetes burdens: (a) the emotional burden of diabetes on themselves and their children, (b) the burden of finding, training, and trusting effective secondary caregivers to manage the child's diabetes, and (c) suggestions for how more comprehensive, personalized diabetes education from healthcare providers for parents and secondary caregivers could help reduce parent burden and worry. Conclusions: In families with very young children with T1D, parental perceptions of the burden of managing diabetes are common and could be mitigated by tailored education programs that increase parent knowledge, bolster parents' confidence in themselves, and increase trust in their secondary caregivers to manage diabetes. Reduced parental burden and increased caregiver knowledge may positively impact child's glycemic control, as well as improve parent and child quality of life

Time spent outside of target glucose range for young children with type 1 diabetes: a continuous glucose monitor study

Aim To assess the associations between demographic and clinical characteristics and sensor glucose metrics in young children with type 1 diabetes, using masked, continuous glucose monitoring data from children aged 2 to < 8 years. Research design and methods The analysis included 143 children across 14 sites in the USA, enrolled in a separate clinical trial. Eligibility criteria were: age 2 to <8 years; type 1 diabetes duration ≥3 months; no continuous glucose monitoring use for past 30 days; and HbA1c concentration 53 to <86 mmol/mol (7.0 to <10.0%). All participants wore masked continuous glucose monitors up to 14 days. Results On average, participants spent the majority (13 h) of the day in hyperglycaemia (>10.0 mmol/l) and a median of ~1 h/day in hypoglycaemia (<3.9 mmol/l). Participants with minority race/ethnicity and higher parent education levels spent more time in target range, 3.9–10.0 mmol/l, and less time in hyperglycaemia. More time in hypoglycaemia was associated with minority race/ethnicity and younger age at diagnosis. Continuous glucose monitoring metrics were similar in pump and injection users. Conclusions Given that both hypo- and hyperglycaemia negatively impact neurocognitive development, strategies to increase time in target glucose range for young children are needed

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