Search

Introduction: Driver anger and aggression have been linked to crash involvement and injury outcomes. Improved road safety outcomes may be achieved through understanding the causes of driver anger, and interventions designed to reduce this anger or prevent it from becoming aggression. Scales to measure anger propensities will be an important tool in this work. The measure for angry drivers (MAD; Stephens et al., 2019) is a contemporary scale designed to measure tendencies for anger across three types of driving scenarios: perceived danger from others, travel delays, and hostility or aggression from other drivers., Method: This study aimed to validate MAD using a representative sample of Australian drivers, stratified across age, gender, and location. Participants completed a 10-minute online survey that included MAD, sought demographic information (age, gender, driving purpose, crash history), as well as the frequency of aggressive driving. Multigroup confirmatory factor analyses (MGCFA) assessed how stable the structure of the MAD was across drivers of different ages, gender, purposes for driving and those who do or do not display anger aggressively. MAD was invariant across all groups, showing that all drivers interpreted and responded to MAD in the same way., Results: A comparison of latent means showed anger tendencies were higher for men compared to women, for younger drivers compared to older drivers, and for those who drive mainly for work compared to those who mainly drive for other reasons. When controlling for driver factors, driving anger was associated with increased odds of being aggressive while driving., Practical Applications: Overall, this study demonstrated that MAD is an appropriate scale to measure anger tendencies and can be used to support interventions, and evaluation of interventions, to reduce anger and aggressive driving., 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 Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Context: Omnipod DASH Insulin Management System is a tubeless insulin pump that overcomes the physical inconveniences of conventional tubed insulin pump therapy (IPT)., Objective: We compared treatment satisfaction with Omnipod DASH System to usual care (multiple daily injections [MDIs] or tubed IPT) in adults with type 1 diabetes using self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG)., Methods: Adults with type 1 diabetes on MDI (n = 40) or IPT (n = 25) from 4 diabetes centers in Australia were randomly assigned in a 1:1 nonblinded manner to Omnipod DASH System (Omnipod group) or continue usual care (Usual Care group) for 12 weeks, followed by a further 12-week extension during which all participants used the device. The primary outcome was treatment satisfaction assessed by change in Diabetes Technology Questionnaire "current" (ΔDTQ-current) score at 12 weeks (study end). Secondary outcomes included ΔDTQ-current following extension and other participant-reported outcomes (PROs) measuring quality of life, burden of disease treatment, and glycemic and device-related outcomes at 12 weeks (study end) and 24 weeks (end extension)., Results: Treatment satisfaction improved more in the Omnipod group vs the Usual Care group (ΔDTQ-current score of 16.4 [21.2] vs 0.0 [12.8]; P < .001) at study end. Significantly greater improvements in other PROs and glycated hemoglobin A1c were also observed. Improvements in DTQ-current and other PROs comparing study end and end extension were similar. While percentage in time in range change from baseline did not differ at study end (-2.0 [12.7] %), it was significantly greater at end extension (5.6 [10.9] %; P = .016)., Conclusion: The Omnipod DASH System resulted in greater treatment satisfaction at 12 weeks in adults with type 1 diabetes using SMBG that was sustained after 24 weeks of device use without compromising sleep quality and fear of hypoglycemia. Improvements in glycemia were also observed., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society.)

Aims: Understanding the lived experience of using a tubeless insulin pump and how this differs compared to usual care (tubed insulin pump therapy (IPT) vs multiple daily injections (MDI))., Methods: Interviews were conducted after 12-weeks of using the Omnipod DASH Insulin Management System (Insulet, Acton, MA) and analysed using thematic analysis., Results: Fifty-eight adults (35 female; mean age 42;SD 13 years; 35 previous MDI) were interviewed. Most (84 %) wanted to continue using the device. Experiences fit two themes: 1. Taking back control of my diabetes: many previous MDI users perceived improved glycaemic control, explained by more "nuanced" control, with some reporting positive effects during exercise and sleep. Many previous MDI and IPT users endorsed positive experiences in concealing or disclosing their diabetes to others. However, some previous MDI users reported negative psychosocial experiences due to feeling continuously "attached" to their diabetes. 2. Barriers and facilitators of device acceptability: both MDI and IPT users cited wearability, alarms and the financial cost impacted their choice to continue device use. IPT users reported positive wearability experiences., Conclusions: The tubeless pump improved diabetes management perceptions for both MDI and tubed pump users. However, participants' prior glucose management affected perceptions of its advantages and disadvantages., 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.)

Background: Older adults with type 1 diabetes are recommended modified glucose targets. However, data on the effects of diabetes technology in older age are scarce. We assessed older adults established on sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy during clinical trial run-in and compared their continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) profiles with consensus recommendations. We aimed to provide insight into the applicability of currently recommended CGM-based targets while accounting for current Diabetes UK guidelines., Methods: In this analysis, adults aged 60 years or older with type 1 diabetes with a duration of at least 10 years and entering the Older Adult Closed Loop (ORACL) trial were studied. The trial was done at two tertiary hospitals in Australia. Individuals who were independent with diabetes self-management, as well as those receiving caregiver assistance for their diabetes management, were eligible for inclusion. Participants underwent baseline clinical assessment, which included medical history and examination, testing for frailty, functional ability, cognitive functioning, psychosocial wellbeing, and subjective sleep quality; fasting venous blood samples were collected for C-peptide, glucose, and glycated haemoglobin A 1c measurement. Sensor-augmented pumps, carbohydrate-counting education, and diabetes education were provided to participants by diabetes nurse educators, dietitians, and endocrinologists experienced in type 1 diabetes clinical care. CGM data were subsequently collected for 2 weeks during sensor-augmented pump therapy. The ORACL trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12619000515190., Findings: Our analysis included all 30 participants who completed the ORACL trial run-in-19 (63%) women and 11 (37%) men (mean age 67 years [SD 5], median diabetes duration 38 years [IQR 20-47], and insulin total daily dose 0·55 units [0·41-0·66] per kg bodyweight). Ten (33%) of 30 participants had impaired hypoglycaemia awareness and six (20%) were pre-frail; none were frail. The median CGM time in range 3·9-10·0 mmol/L was 71% (IQR 64-79). The time spent with glucose above 10·0 mmol/L was 27% (18-35) and above 13·9 mmol/L was 3·9% (2·4-10·2). The time with glucose below 3·9 mmol/L was 2·0% (1·2-3·1) and the time below 3·0 mmol/L was 0·2% (0·1-0·4). Only two (7%) of 30 participants met all CGM-based consensus recommendations modified for older adults. Time in hypoglycaemia was lower among the 16 participants with predictive low-glucose alerts enabled than among the 14 participants not using predictive low-glucose alerts (median difference -1·1 percentage points [95% CI -2·0 to -0·1]; p=0·038). This difference was even greater overnight (-2·3 percentage points [-3·2 to -1·0]; p=0·0018). One serious adverse event occurred (elective cardiac stent)., Interpretation: Using sensor-augmented pumps after multidisciplinary education, this group of older adults without frailty achieved a time in range far exceeding minimum consensus recommendations. However, the current stringent hypoglycaemia recommendations for all older adults were not met. Predictive low alerts could reduce hypoglycaemia, particularly overnight. Investigation into the effectiveness of CGM-based targets that consider frailty, functional status, and diabetes therapies for older adults is warranted., Funding: JDRF and Diabetes Australia., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests ST reports a research grant from Insulet Corporation. SF reports honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi; serving on advisory boards for Medtronic, Mylan, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Viatris; and chairing the Australian Diabetes Society Living Evidence Guidelines for Diabetes Medical Device Technologies. MHL reports speaker honoraria from Medtronic. RJM reports research grants from Medtronic; receiving honoraria for lectures from Eli Lilly Australia and Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals; travel support from Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals; serving on advisory boards for Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly Australia; and serving as a voluntary board member for the Australian Diabetes Society. DNO reports serving on advisory boards for Abbott, Medtronic, MSD, Novo, Roche, and Sanofi; receiving research support from Medtronic, Novo, Roche, Lilly, and Sanofi; and receiving travel support from Novo and MSD. SAM reports support for research from Medtronic; receiving speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly Australia, Roche Diabetes Care Australia, and Sanofi-Aventis Australia; serving on advisory boards for Medtronic and Ypsomed; and facilitating workshops for the Australian Diabetes Society. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: This prerandomization analysis from the Australian HCL-Adult trial (registration number: ACTRN12617000520336) compared masked continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics among adults using insulin pumps versus multiple daily injections (MDIs), who were all self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG). Methods: Adults with type 1 diabetes, using an insulin pump or MDIs without real-time CGM (and entering a trial of closed-loop technology), were eligible. MDI users were given an insulin dosage calculator. All participants received diabetes and carbohydrate-counting education, then wore masked CGM sensors for 3 weeks. Ethics Approval: HREC-D 088/16 Results: Adults using MDIs ( n  = 61) versus pump ( n  = 59) did not differ by age, sex, diabetes duration, insulin total daily dose, or HbA 1c at baseline. After education, median (interquartile range) CGM time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was 54% (47, 62) for those using MDIs and 56% (48, 66) for those using pump ( P  = 0.40). All CGM metrics were equivalent for 24 h/day for MDI and pump users. Overnight, those using MDIs (vs. pump) spent more time with glucose <54 mg/dL (<3.0 mmol/L): 1.4% (0.1, 5.1) versus 0.5% (0.0, 2.0), respectively ( P  = 0.012). They also had more CGM hypoglycemia episodes (121 vs. 54, respectively; incidence rate ratio [95% confidence interval] 2.48 [1.51, 4.06]; P  < 0.001). Conclusions: Adults with type 1 diabetes using pumps versus MDIs in conjunction with SMBG experienced less nocturnal hypoglycemia, measured by masked CGM, after equivalent diabetes and dietary education in conjunction with insulin dosage calculator provision to all. However, both groups had equivalent TIR. This observation may reflect advantages afforded by flexibility in basal insulin delivery provided by pumps.

Aims: Prospective memory has been long considered a fundamental cognitive ability for optimal medication taking, but the role of prospective memory errors (termed 'slips') in diabetes self-care is unclear. Our aim was to examine associations between prospective memory and medication taking in adults with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes mellitus., Methods: Some 901 adults with Type 1 diabetes and 927 with Type 2 diabetes completed a cross-sectional survey focused on the psychological and behavioural aspects of living with diabetes. Respondents reported whether they had forgotten to take their diabetes medication over the previous 14 days., Results: Twenty-four per cent (n = 220) of adults with Type 1 diabetes and 23% (n = 211) with Type 2 diabetes reported that they had forgotten their medication at least once over the previous 14 days. This was associated with more prospective memory slips in adults with Type 1 diabetes [odds ratio (OR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.13; P < 0.001] and Type 2 diabetes (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15; P < 0.001); and with younger age (both groups), insulin pump use (Type 1 diabetes), insulin treatment (Type 2 diabetes), less frequent blood glucose checks (Type 1 diabetes) and higher HbA 1c (Type 1 diabetes)., Conclusions: These findings suggest that forgetting medication is relatively common among adults with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes, and provide preliminary evidence for its relationship with self-reported prospective memory slips., (© 2018 Diabetes UK.)

Introduction: Manual determination of insulin dosing largely fails to optimise glucose control in type 1 diabetes. Automated insulin delivery via closed-loop systems has improved glucose control in short-term studies. The objective of the present study is to determine the effectiveness of 6 months' closed-loop compared with manually determined insulin dosing on time-in-target glucose range in adults with type 1 diabetes., Methods and Analysis: This open-label, seven-centre, randomised controlled parallel group clinical trial will compare home-based hybrid closed-loop versus standard diabetes therapy in Australia. Adults aged ≥25 years with type 1 diabetes using intensive insulin therapy (via multiple daily injections or insulin pump, total enrolment target n=120) will undertake a run-in period including diabetes and carbohydrate-counting education, clinical optimisation and baseline data collection. Participants will then be randomised 1:1 either to 26 weeks of MiniMed 670G hybrid closed-loop system therapy (Medtronic, Northridge, CA, USA) or continuation of their current diabetes therapy. The hybrid closed-loop system delivers insulin automatically to address basal requirements and correct to target glucose level, while bolus doses for meals require user initiation and carbohydrate estimation. Analysis will be intention to treat, with the primary outcome time in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) during the final 3 weeks of intervention. Secondary outcomes include: other CGM parameters, HbA 1c , severe hypoglycaemia, psychosocial well-being, sleep, cognition, electrocardiography, costs, quality of life, biomarkers of vascular health and hybrid closed-loop system performance. Semistructured interviews will assess the expectations and experiences of a subgroup of hybrid closed-loop users., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has Human Research Ethics Committee approval. The study will be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice. Results will be disseminated at scientific conferences and via peer-reviewed publications., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12617000520336; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MIdB and NDC report receiving speaker honoraria from Medtronic. DJHW reports receiving speaker and advisory board honoraria from Medtronic. RWM reports receiving conference travel and accommodation support from Medtronic. JS reports that the ACBRD has received honoraria from Medtronic in relation to her speaking engagements and role in advisory boards. DNON reports receiving speaker honoraria and research grants from Medtronic., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)