Search

Aims: To analyze metabolic outcomes, diabetes impact and device satisfaction in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes in Italy who used different treatment modalities for diabetes care in a real-life context., Methods: In this multicenter, nationwide, cross-sectional study, 1464 participants were enrolled at a routine visit. The following treatment modalities were considered MDI + SMBG; MDI + CGM; Sensor Augmented Pump Therapy; predictive management of low glucose; Hybrid Closed Loop (HCL); Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop (AHCL). Health related quality of life was evaluated by the Italian version of the Diabetes Impact and Device Satisfaction Scale (DIDS) questionnaire., Results: Patients treated with AID systems were more likely to have HbA1c ≤ 6.5 %, higher percentage of time with glucose levels between 70 and 180 mg/dL, lower percentage of time with glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, higher device satisfaction, and reduced impact of diabetes. All the therapeutic modalities with respect to MDI + CGM, except for MDI + SMBG, contributed to increase the device satisfaction. HCL and AHCL respect to MDI + CGM were associated with lower diabetes impact., Conclusion: Real-life use of automated insulin delivery systems is associated with reduced type 1 diabetes impact, increased device satisfaction, and achievement of glycemic goals., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

[This corrects the article .]., (Copyright © 2022 Cherubini, Marino, Scaramuzza, Tiberi, Bobbio, Delvecchio, Piccinno, Ortolani, Innaurato, Felappi, Gallo, Ripoli, Ricciardi, Pascarella, Stamati, Citriniti, Arnaldi, Monti, Graziani, De Berardinis, Giannini, Chiarelli, Zampolli, De Marco, Bracciolini, Grosso, De Donno, Piccini, Toni, Coccioli, Cardinale, Bassi, Minuto, D’Annunzio, Maffeis, Marigliano, Zanfardino, Iafusco, Rollato, Piscopo, Curto, Lombardo, Bombaci, Sordelli, Mameli, Macedoni, Rigamonti, Bonfanti, Frontino, Predieri, Bruzzi, Mozzillo, Rosanio, Franzese, Piredda, Cardella, Iovane, Calcaterra, Berioli, Lasagni, Pampanini, Patera, Schiaffini, Rutigliano, Meloni, De Sanctis, Tinti, Trada, Guerraggio, Franceschi, Cauvin, Tornese, Franco, Musolino, Maltoni, Talarico, Iannilli, Lenzi, Matteoli, Pozzi, Moretti, Zucchini, Rabbone and Gesuita.)

Aim/hypothesis: To compare the frequency of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes in Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 with the frequency of DKA during 2017-2019., Methods: Forty-seven pediatric diabetes centers caring for >90% of young people with diabetes in Italy recruited 4,237 newly diagnosed children with type 1 diabetes between 2017 and 2020 in a longitudinal study. Four subperiods in 2020 were defined based on government-imposed containment measures for COVID-19, and the frequencies of DKA and severe DKA compared with the same periods in 2017-2019., Results: Overall, the frequency of DKA increased from 35.7% (95%CI, 33.5-36.9) in 2017-2019 to 39.6% (95%CI, 36.7-42.4) in 2020 (p=0.008), while the frequency of severe DKA increased from 10.4% in 2017-2019 (95%CI, 9.4-11.5) to 14.2% in 2020 (95%CI, 12.3-16.4, p<0.001). DKA and severe DKA increased during the early pandemic period by 10.4% (p=0.004) and 8% (p=0.002), respectively, and the increase continued throughout 2020. Immigrant background increased and high household income decreased the probability of presenting with DKA (OR: 1.55; 95%CI, 1.24-1.94; p<0.001 and OR: 0.60; 95 CI, 0.41-0.88; p=0.010, respectively)., Conclusions/interpretation: There was an increase in the frequency of DKA and severe DKA in children newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, with no apparent association with the severity of COVID-19 infection severity or containment measures. There has been a silent outbreak of DKA in children during the pandemic, and preventive action is required to prevent this phenomenon in the event of further generalized lockdowns or future outbreaks., Competing Interests: No author reported any conflict of interest as regards this study. The following conflicts of interest pointed out are referred to a period from January 2020 to the submission of this manuscript. VCh’s institution has received research grants from AstraZeneca, Novonordisk, Eli Lilly, Movi, Dompè, and Menarini, and VCh received honoraria from Eli Lilly, Tandem, and Insulet for participating on speakers’ bureaus and scientific advisory boards. CR, DT, IRa, BPr, BPi, SZ, ST, and AR has received support Eli Lilly. In addition, SZ’s institution has received support from Pfeizer, ST, BPi, and DT have received support from Abbott and Theras. MM and AR have received support from Menarini. BPr and PB received honoraria for participating on speakers’ bureaus and scientific advisory boards for Sandoz. Lastly, RS has received research grants by Sanofi and received honoraria for participating on speakers’ bureaus and scientific advisory boards for Movi. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Cherubini, Marino, Scaramuzza, Tiberi, Bobbio, Delvecchio, Piccinno, Ortolani, Innaurato, Felappi, Gallo, Ripoli, Ricciardi, Pascarella, Stamati, Citriniti, Arnaldi, Monti, Graziani, De Berardinis, Giannini, Chiarelli, Zampolli, De Marco, Bracciolini, Grosso, De Donno, Piccini, Toni, Coccioli, Cardinale, Bassi, Minuto, D’Annunzio, Maffeis, Marigliano, Zanfardino, Iafusco, Rollato, Piscopo, Curto, Lombardo, Bombaci, Sordelli, Mameli, Macedoni, Rigamonti, Bonfanti, Frontino, Predieri, Bruzzi, Mozzillo, Rosanio, Franzese, Piredda, Cardella, Iovane, Calcaterra, Berioli, Lasagni, Pampanini, Patera, Schiaffini, Rutigliano, Meloni, De Sanctis, Tinti, Trada, Guerraggio, Franceschi, Cauvin, Tornese, Franco, Musolino, Maltoni, Talarico, Iannilli, Lenzi, Matteoli, Pozzi, Moretti, Zucchini, Rabbone and Gesuita.)

Background: There exists a wide variation in the reported incidence of coeliac disease in recent decades. We aimed to evaluate the incidence rate of coeliac diagnoses performed in an Italian region, Campania, between 2011 and 2013 and its variation therein., Methods: All coeliac diagnoses made from 2011 to 2013 and registered within the Campania coeliac disease register (CeliacDB) were identified. Incidence rates were analysed by sex, age and province of residence, with a Poisson model fitted to determine incidence rate ratios., Results: We found 2049 coeliac disease diagnoses registered in the CeliacDB between 2011 and 2013; 1441 of these patients were female (70.4%) and 1059 were aged less than 19 years (51.7%). The overall incidence of coeliac disease in Campania was 11.8 per 100,000 person-years (95% CI 11.3-12.3) during the study period, with marked variation by age [27.4 per 100,000 person-years (95% CI 25.8-29.1) in children under 19 years of age and 7.3 per 100,000 (95% CI 6.8-7.8) in adults] and sex [16.1 per 100,000 person-years in females (95% CI 15.3-16.9) and 7.2 per 100,000 person-years in males (95% CI 6.6-7.8)]. Coeliac disease incidence was roughly similar in Naples, Salerno, Caserta and Avellino, but about half in Benevento. More than 80% of our study population was diagnosed by the combination of positive antitransglutaminase IgA and Marsh 3. More than half of the patients were symptomatic at the time of coeliac disease diagnosis (39.7% had a classical presentation and 21.1% a non-classical one according to the Oslo definition)., Conclusions: Coeliac disease incidence was roughly similar among Campania provinces, except in Benevento where it was about half, probably due to less awareness of coeliac disease in this area. The incidence of coeliac disease in Campania appears to be lower than that reported by most of the previous literature, suggesting the necessity of new coeliac awareness programmes.

Objectives: To determine the prevalence of and explore possible differences in the risk for and symptoms of Clostridium difficile infection between patients with and without inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)., Study Design: Stool specimens from subjects with and without IBD were evaluated for the presence of C difficile toxins. Demographic information, diagnosis, anatomic location, disease activity, IBD therapy, hospitalizations, and antibiotic and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) exposures were recorded., Results: A total of 193 specimens were collected from 81 patients with IBD and 112 patients without IBD. The prevalence of C difficile infection was significantly greater in the patients with IBD than in those without IBD (P = .004; chi2 = 0.003; odds ratio = 3.3; 95% confidence interval = 1.5 to 7.6). In the patients with IBD, the prevalence of active disease was significantly greater in the C difficile-infected patients than in the uninfected patients (P < .0001). Colonic involvement was found in all patients with IBD. The specific type of IBD, IBD therapy, and antibiotic and PPI exposures that predisposed patients with IBD to C difficile infection were not identified, whereas hospitalization was significantly more frequent in the patients without IBD (P = .025)., Conclusions: Our findings indicate that in children, IBD is associated with an increased prevalence of C difficile infection. The specific risk factors reported in adults were not identified in these children, suggesting the possible involvement of other mechanisms for acquiring the pathogen.

Objectives: Several probiotic compounds have shown promise in the therapy of ulcerative colitis (UC). However, a strong sustained benefit remains to be seen. Uncontrolled pilot studies suggest that a probiotic preparation (VSL#3) maintains remission in mild to moderate UC and reduces active inflammation in adult patients. Aims of our prospective, 1-year, placebo-controlled, double-blind study were to assess the efficacy of VSL#3 on induction and maintenance of remission and to evaluate the safety and tolerability of the probiotic preparation therapy in children with active UC., Methods: A total of 29 consecutive patients (mean age: 9.8 years; range: 1.7-16.1 years; female/male: 13/16) with newly diagnosed UC were randomized to receive either VSL#3 (weight-based dose, range: 450-1,800 billion bacteria/day; n=14) or an identical placebo (n=15) in conjunction with concomitant steroid induction and mesalamine maintenance treatment. Children were prospectively evaluated at four time points: within 1 month, 2 months, 6 months, and 1 year after diagnosis or at the time of relapse. Lichtiger colitis activity index and a physician's global assessment were used to measure disease activity. At baseline, within 6 months and 12 months or at the time of relapse, all patients were assessed endoscopically and histologically., Results: All 29 patients responded to the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) induction therapy. Remission was achieved in 13 patients (92.8%) treated with VSL#3 and IBD therapy and in 4 patients (36.4%) treated with placebo and IBD therapy (P<0.001). Overall, 3 of 14 (21.4%) patients treated with VSL#3 and IBD therapy and 11 of 15 (73.3%) patients treated with placebo and IBD therapy relapsed within 1 year of follow-up (P=0.014; RR=0.32; CI=0.025-0.773; NNT=2). All 3 patients treated with VSL#3 and 6 of 11 (54.5%) patients treated with placebo relapsed within 6 months of diagnosis. At 6 months, 12 months, or at time of relapse, endoscopic and histological scores were significantly lower in the VSL#3 group than in the placebo group (P<0.05). There were no biochemical or clinical adverse events related to VSL#3., Conclusions: This is the first pediatric, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that suggests the efficacy and safety of a highly concentrated mixture of probiotic bacterial strains (VSL#3) in active UC and demonstrates its role in maintenance of remission.