Search

Objective: To investigate temporal trends in glycemic control and severe hypoglycemia rates for pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes from 1995 to 2016 by analyzing data from the longitudinal, prospective, population-based German/Austrian (Diabetes Patient History Documentation [DPV]) and Western Australian (Western Australian Children's Diabetes Database [WACDD]) diabetes registries.Research Design and Methods: Patients diagnosed with type 1 diabetes aged <15 years were identified from the DPV (N = 59,883) and WACDD (N = 2,595) registries and data extracted for all clinic visits occurring between 1995 and 2016, inclusive. Mean HbA1c and severe hypoglycemia (self-reported loss of consciousness/convulsion) rates were calculated per 100 patient-years.Results: Between 1995 and 2016, the annual mean HbA1c decreased from 8.3 to 7.8% in the DPV cohort and from 9.2 to 8.3% in the WACDD cohort. Over the same period, the severe hypoglycemia rate decreased by an annual average of 2% (relative risk 0.983 [95% CI 0.981, 0.986]) in the DPV cohort and 6% (relative risk 0.935 [95% CI 0.934, 0.937]) in the WACDD cohort. Concomitant decreasing trends in both HbA1c and severe hypoglycemia rates were observed in boys and girls, all age-groups, and injection therapy/pump regimen groups.Conclusions: Over the past two decades, there have been concurrent improvements in HbA1c and decreasing severe hypoglycemia rates in two contemporary, longitudinal, population-based pediatric cohorts of type 1 diabetes. Translation of these data into clinical practice and patient education may reduce fear of hypoglycemia and enable better glycemic control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To assess the change in rates of pediatric real‐time or intermittent scanning continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use over the past 5 years, and how it impacts glycemic control, data from two registries were compared: the US‐based type 1 diabetes Exchange Registry (T1DX) and the German/Austrian DPV (Prospective Diabetes Follow‐Up Registry). Methods: Registry participants aged <18 years with T1D duration ≥1 year encompassed 29 007 individuals in 2011 and 29 150 participants in 2016. Demographic data, CGM use and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) were obtained from medical records. Results: CGM use increased from 2011 to 2016 in both registries across all age groups, regardless of gender, ethnic minority status or insulin delivery method. The increase in CGM use was most pronounced in the youngest patients, and usage rates remain lowest for adolescent patients in 2016. For both registries in 2016, mean HbA1c was lower among CGM users regardless of insulin delivery method compared to pump only (P < 0.001) and injection only (P < 0.001), and CGM users were more likely to achieve glycemic target of HbA1c <7.5% (56% vs 43% for DPV and 30% vs 15% for T1DX, P < 0.001). T1DX participants had a higher mean HbA1c compared with DPV despite whether they were CGM users or non‐users; however, the difference was less pronounced in CGM users (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Pediatric CGM use increased in both registries and was associated with lower mean HbA1c regardless of insulin delivery modality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Celiac disease (CD) has a recognized association with type 1 diabetes. We examined international differences in CD prevalence and clinical characteristics of youth with coexisting type 1 diabetes and CD versus type 1 diabetes only.Research Design and Methods: Data sources were as follows: the Prospective Diabetes Follow-up Registry (DPV) (Germany/Austria); the T1D Exchange Clinic Network (T1DX) (U.S.); the National Paediatric Diabetes Audit (NPDA) (U.K. [England/Wales]); and the Australasian Diabetes Data Network (ADDN) (Australia). The analysis included 52,721 youths <18 years of age with a clinic visit between April 2013 and March 2014. Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were constructed to analyze the relationship between outcomes (HbA1c, height SD score [SDS], overweight/obesity) and type 1 diabetes/CD versus type 1 diabetes, adjusting for sex, age, and diabetes duration.Results: Biopsy-confirmed CD was present in 1,835 youths (3.5%) and was diagnosed at a median age of 8.1 years (interquartile range 5.3-11.2 years). Diabetes duration at CD diagnosis was <1 year in 37% of youths, >1-2 years in 18% of youths, >3-5 years in 23% of youths, and >5 years in 17% of youths. CD prevalence ranged from 1.9% in the T1DX to 7.7% in the ADDN and was higher in girls than boys (4.3% vs. 2.7%, P < 0.001). Children with coexisting CD were younger at diabetes diagnosis compared with those with type 1 diabetes only (5.4 vs. 7.0 years of age, P < 0.001) and fewer were nonwhite (15 vs. 18%, P < 0.001). Height SDS was lower in those with CD (0.36 vs. 0.48, adjusted P < 0.001) and fewer were overweight/obese (34 vs. 37%, adjusted P < 0.001), whereas mean HbA1c values were comparable: 8.3 ± 1.5% (67 ± 17 mmol/mol) versus 8.4 ± 1.6% (68 ± 17 mmol/mol).Conclusions: CD is a common comorbidity in youth with type 1 diabetes. Differences in CD prevalence may reflect international variation in screening and diagnostic practices, and/or CD risk. Although glycemic control was not different, the lower height SDS supports close monitoring of growth and nutrition in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Due to a high linkage disequilibrium of diabetes and coeliac-specific human leucocyte antigen (HLA) genotypes, the prevalence of coeliac disease (CD) in children and adolescents with diabetes mellitus type 1 (T1D) is much higher than in the general population. Recently, the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) revised new screening guidelines in which genotyping for coeliac-specific HLA alleles is recommended for high-risk patients as patients with T1D. The aim of our study was to investigate the frequency and distribution of coeliac-specific HLA genotypes in paediatric patients with T1D.Study Design: HLA genotyping was performed on paediatric patients with T1D, recruited at the Medical University Hospital of Innsbruck and Graz. The test was done by PCR. Statistical analysis was performed with IBM-SPSS V.20.Results: In 121 paediatric patients with T1D (52% male), mean age 13.3 (SD 3.9) years, mean age at diabetes diagnosis 7.4 (SD 3.8) and mean diabetes duration of 5.9 (SD 3.3) years, HLA genotyping was conducted. Ninety-two per cent showed positive HLA DQ2 and/or HLA DQ8 genotypes. Thirty-four per cent carried HLA DQ2, 33% were HLA DQ2+DQ8 positive and 25% of the patients showed positive results for HLA DQ8 alone. Only 8% had no coeliac-specific HLA markers. Four (3%) patients were diagnosed with CD.Conclusions: The majority of paediatric patients with T1D has positive coeliac-specific HLA genotypes DQ2 and/or DQ8. Therefore, genotyping for coeliac-specific HLA alleles as a first-line test in patients with T1D as recommended in the ESPGHAN guidelines does not seem reasonable. Screening for coeliac-specific antibodies needs to be performed on a regular basis for patients with T1D. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To investigate changes in diabetes treatment over the last two decades in three age-groups of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) from Germany and Austria. Methods: 63,967 subjects (<18yr) with T1D documented between 1995 and 2014 from the DPV-database were included and stratified according to age (0.5-<6, 6-<12, 12-<18yr). Regression models were applied for insulin regimens (<3 and ≥4 injection time points/day, or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII)), use of rapid- and long acting insulin analogues, NPH insulin, and frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG)/day. Models were adjusted for sex, diabetes duration, and migration background. P-value for trend was given. Findings: The number of subjects with <3 injection time points/day decreased from 1995 to 2014 to <5% in all age-groups (p<0.0001). Proportion of patients with ≥4 injections/day increased until the early 2000s, and then declined until 2014. This trend was not found in 6-<12yr olds (p = 0.3403). CSII increased in all age-groups (p<0.0001) with the highest increase in children <6 years (from 0.4% to 79.2%), and the lowest increase in 12-<18 year olds (from 1.0% to 38.9%). NPH insulin decreased in all age-groups (p<0.0001). Insulin analogues, especially rapid-acting, became more frequent in all age-groups (p<0.0001), accounting for 78.4% in 2014 for all subjects. The highest use was found in the youngest children (in 2014: 85.6%), the lowest use in 6-<12 year olds (in 2014: 72.9%). The number of SMBG/day increased from 2.2 to 6.4 with a similar rise in all age-groups (p<0.0001). Frequency was highest in subjects <6yr. Conclusions: In all age-groups, T1D treatment was intensified over the last 20 years. Age-specific differences in trends were particularly observed in the number of patients on CSII, in the number of patients with 4 or more injections/day, and in the frequency of SMBG/day. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Insulin pump therapy ( CSII) is well established in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes. In childhood diabetes, insulin pump treatment shows considerable advantages such as fewer injections, increased flexibility, fewer hypoglycemic events and lower HbA1c levels. Side effects such as catheter obstruction, technical pump failure, and dermatological complications have been observed, but are rarely reported. The reported patient is a physically very active and slim 10-year-old boy with reduced subcutaneous fatty tissue. After strong muscular activity an accidental rupture of the infusion set and needle detachment occurred in October 2013. X-ray and ultrasound imaging localized the needle in the musculus rectus femoris dexter. The needle was kept in situ and oral antibiotic treatment to prevent inflammatory reaction was prescribed. Repeated ultrasound measurements documented that the needles position had remained unchanged. Steel needle catheters (Sure-T infusion set, 6 mm) positioned in a thin layer of subcutaneous fat tissue of the thigh, combined with intense sports activity can result in a needle rupture and penetration into the muscle. Careful monitoring provides an alternative to surgery and lowers the risk of muscular necrosis. Because of differences in the distribution of subcutaneous fat tissue, an individualized catheter selection is necessary in pump treatment for children and adolescents, requiring a variety of different catheter sets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the international comparison between smoking and metabolic control in type 1 diabetes patients (T1D), which may increase the risks of vascular complication of T1D. Topics discussed include the utilization of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, T1D Exchange Registry (T1DX) in the U.S., and the Prospective Diabetes Follow-up Registry (DPV) in Germany.

Aims: To explore parents' experiences of using a hybrid closed-loop system (CamAPS FX) when caring for a very young child (aged 1-7 years) with type 1 diabetes.Methods: Interviews with n = 33 parents of 30 children who used the system during a randomised controlled trial. Data analysis used a descriptive thematic approach.Results: While some parents were initially reticent about handing control to the system, all reported clinical benefits to using the technology, having to do less diabetes-related work and needing less clinical input over time. Parents welcomed opportunities to enhance the system's efficacy (using Ease-off and Boost functions) as required. Parents described how the system's automated glucose control facilitated more normality, including sleeping better, worrying less about their child, and feeling more confident and able to outsource care. Parents also described more normality for the child (alongside better sleep, mood and concentration, and lessened distress) and siblings. Parents liked being able to administer insulin using a smartphone, but suggested refinements to device size and functionality.Conclusions: Using a hybrid closed-loop system in very young children can facilitate greater normality and may result in a lessened demand for health professionals' input. Systems may need to be customised for very young children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We aimed to evaluate the longer-term safety and efficacy of hybrid closed-loop (CL) therapy in very young children with type 1 diabetes (T1D)., Research Design and Methods: Following a 16-week multinational, randomized crossover trial comparing hybrid CL with sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy in 74 very young children aged 1-7 years with T1D, participants were invited to an extension phase using CL for a further 18 months. Outcomes were compared with the primary-phase SAP period and primary-phase CL period., Results: After the primary study phase, 60 participants were eligible to enroll in the extension. Of these, 49 consented (mean ± SD age 6.6 ± 1.5 years) to continue use of CL for 18 months. Percentage time in range (TIR) 3.9-10.0 mmol/L was 8.4 percentage points (95% CI 6.7 to 10.1; P < 0.001) higher, while HbA1c was 0.4% ([5.0 mmol/mol], 95% CI 0.3 to 0.6 [3.7 to 6.2]; P < 0.001) lower during the CL extension phase compared with primary-phase SAP period. At 18 months, mean HbA1c was 6.7 ± 0.5% and TIR was 70 ± 7%, compared with 6.7 ± 0.5% and 71 ± 6% in the primary-phase CL period. Time in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L) was similar between CL extension phase and both primary-phase SAP (P = 0.31) and CL periods (P = 0.70). There were two severe hypoglycemia events and one other serious adverse event during the extension phase. One unexpected serious adverse device effect occurred., Conclusions: Use of the Cambridge hybrid CL system led to sustained improvements in glycemic control lasting more than 18 months in very young children with T1D., (© 2024 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: Many hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems struggle to manage unusually high glucose levels as experienced with intercurrent illness or pre-menstrually. Manual correction boluses may be needed, increasing hypoglycemia risk with overcorrection. The Cambridge HCL system includes a user-initiated algorithm intensification mode ("Boost"), activation of which increases automated insulin delivery by approximately 35%, while remaining glucose-responsive. In this analysis, we assessed the safety of "Boost" mode., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from closed-loop studies involving young children (1-7 years, n = 24), children and adolescents (10-17 years, n = 19), adults (≥24 years, n = 13), and older adults (≥60 years, n = 20) with type 1 diabetes. Outcomes were calculated per participant for days with ≥30 minutes of "Boost" use versus days with no "Boost" use. Participants with <10 "Boost" days were excluded. The main outcome was time spent in hypoglycemia <70 and <54 mg/dL., Results: Eight weeks of data for 76 participants were analyzed. There was no difference in time spent <70 and <54 mg/dL between "Boost" days and "non-Boost" days; mean difference: -0.10% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.28 to 0.07; P = .249) time <70 mg/dL, and 0.03 (-0.04 to 0.09; P = .416) time < 54 mg/dL. Time in significant hyperglycemia >300 mg/dL was 1.39 percentage points (1.01 to 1.77; P < .001) higher on "Boost" days, with higher mean glucose and lower time in target range ( P < .001)., Conclusions: Use of an algorithm intensification mode in HCL therapy is safe across all age groups with type 1 diabetes. The higher time in hyperglycemia observed on "Boost" days suggests that users are more likely to use algorithm intensification on days with extreme hyperglycemic excursions., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: RH reports having received speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly, Dexcom, and Novo Nordisk; receiving license fees from BBraun; patents related to closed-loop; and being director at CamDiab. JW reports receiving speaker honoraria from Ypsomed. YR is a consultant at CamDiab. MEW is a consultant at CamDiab and reports patents related to closed-loop. CKB reports receiving consultancy fees from CamDiab and speaker honoraria from Ypsomed. SH reports speaker and advisory board fees from Dexcom, Medtronic, Sanofi, and Ypsomed; being director at ASK Diabetes Ltd; and receiving consulting/training fees from CamDiab. LB reports receiving research support from Dexcom and CamDiab. REJB reports receiving speaking honoraria from Eli Lilly and Springer Healthcare, and sitting as a voluntary unpaid member of the NovoNordisk UK Foundation Research Selection committee. FMC reports receiving speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly, Dexcom, and Novo Nordisk and Insulet, and consultancy fees from Abbott Diabetes Care. EF-R reports having received speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, serving on advisory boards for Eli Lilly and Sanofi. MLE is a clinical triallist with or has served on advisory boards or received speakers or writers fees from Medtronic, Dexcom, Abbott Diabetes Care, Roche, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Zucara, Pila Pharma, and Imcyse Pharma. SEH has received speaker honoraria by Eli Lilly, Vertex, Minimed Medtronic, Insulet, Ypsomed, and Sanofi. TMK reports having received speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly and Novo. LL has received personal fees from Abbott Diabetes Care, Dexcom, Insulet, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Diabetes Care. JKM is a member on the advisory board of Boehringer Ingelheim, Becton-Dickinson, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Prediktor A/S, Roche Diabetes Care, and Sanofi-Aventis, and received speaker honoraria from Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca, Becton-Dickinson, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Mercke Sharp & Dohme, NovoNordisk, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi, Servier, and Ypsomed. TR reports receiving speaker honoraria from Novo Nordisk and consultancy fees from Abbott Diabetes Care. HT reports receiving research support from Dexcom and speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly. MT reports having received speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Medtronic and advisory board fees from Abbott Diabetes Care. BR-M has received speaker honoraria from Abbott Diabetes Care, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi, and Menarini and has been on the advisory boards of Eli Lilly, Roche Diabetes Care, and Abbott Diabetes Care. CdB has received speaker honoraria from Minimed Medtronic, and has been member of their European Psychology and e-learning Advisory Board. JMA reports training fees from CamDiab. DE, WMM, PN, TP, AG, AT, KD, and NT have no disclosures.

People living with diabetes mellitus can be supported in the daily management by diabetes technology with automated insulin delivery (AID) systems to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia and improve glycemic control as well as the quality of life. Due to barriers in the availability of AID-systems, the use and development of open-source AID-systems have internationally increased. This technology provides a necessary alternative to commercially available products, especially when approved systems are inaccessible or insufficiently adapted to the specific needs of the users. Open-source technology is characterized by worldwide free availability of codes on the internet, is not officially approved and therefore the use is on the individual's own responsibility. In the clinical practice a lack of expertise with open-source AID technology and concerns about legal consequences, lead to conflict situations for health-care professionals (HCP), sometimes resulting in the refusal of care of people living with diabetes mellitus. This position paper provides an overview of the available evidence and practical guidance for HCP to minimize uncertainties and barriers. People living with diabetes mellitus must continue to be supported in education and diabetes management, independent of the chosen diabetes technology including open-source technology. Check-ups of the metabolic control, acute and chronic complications and screening for diabetes-related diseases are necessary and should be regularly carried out, regardless of the chosen AID-system and by a multidisciplinary team with appropriate expertise., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: CamAPS FX is a hybrid closed-loop smartphone app used to manage type one diabetes. The closed-loop algorithm has a default target glucose of 5.8 mmol/L (104.5 mg/dL), but users can select personal glucose targets (adjustable between 4.4 mmol/L and 11.0 mmol/L [79 mg/dL and 198 mg/dL, respectively])., Method: In this post-hoc analysis, we evaluated the impact of personal glucose targets on glycemic control using data from participants in five randomized controlled trials., Results: Personal glucose targets were widely used, with 20.3% of all days in the data set having a target outside the default target bin (5.5-6.0 mmol/L [99-108 mg/dL]). Personal glucose targets >6.5 mmol/L (117 mg/dL) were associated with significantly less time in target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]; 6.5-7.0 mmol/L [117-126 mg/dL]: mean difference = -3.2 percentage points [95% CI: -5.3 to -1.2; P < .001]; 7.0-7.5 mmol/L [126-135 mg/dL]: -10.8 percentage points [95% CI: -14.1 to -7.6; P < .001]). Personal targets >6.5 mmol/L (117 mg/dL) were associated with significantly lower time (<3.9 mmol/L [<70 mg/dL]; 6.5-7.0 mmol/L [117-126 mg/dL]: -1.85 percentage points [95% CI: -2.37 to -1.34; P < .001]; 7.0-7.5 mmol/L [126-135 mg/dL]: -2.68 percentage points [95% CI: -3.49 to -1.86; P < .001])., Conclusions: Discrete study populations showed differences in glucose control when applying similar personal targets., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: C.K.B. has received consulting fees from CamDiab and speaker honoraria from Ypsomed. J.W. has received speaker honoraria from Ypsomed. J.M.A. has received consulting fees from CamDiab. S.H. serves as a member of Sigma (Dexcom) and Medtronic advisory boards; is a consultant for CamDiab and a director of Ask Diabetes Ltd., providing training and research support in healthcare settings; and reports having received training honoraria from Medtronic, Sanofi, and Ypsomed. M.E.W. reports receiving license fees from B. Braun, patents related to closed-loop systems, and being a consultant at CamDiab. C.d.B. reports having received speaker honoraria from Medtronic and has served on the EU psychology e-learning board of Medtronic. E.F.-R. reports having received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi and serving on the advisory board for Eli Lilly and Company. S.E.H. has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Eli Lilly, Ypsomed, and Insulet. T.M.K. reports having received speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, and Novo Nordisk. B.R.-M. has received speaker honoraria from Abbott Diabetes Care, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi, and Menarini and has been on the advisory boards of Eli Lilly, Roche Diabetes Care, and Abbott Diabetes Care. T.L.R. has received consultancy fees from Abbott Diabetes Care and speaker honoraria from Novo Nordisk. R.E.J.B. reports having received speaking honoraria from Eli Lilly and Springer Healthcare and sits as an unpaid member of the Novo Nordisk UK Research Foundation grant and selection committee. L.D. has received honoraria for taking part in an Interactive Advisory and Advocacy Forum on CGM Use in Pediatric Clinical Practice from Dexcom and has received conference fees from Novo Nordisk. H.T. reports having received research support from Dexcom and speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly and Dexcom. L.L. reports having received speaker honoraria from Animas, Abbott, Insulet, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Roche, and Sanofi; was on advisory panels for Animas, Abbott, Novo Nordisk, Dexcom, Medtronic, Sanofi, and Roche; and received research support from Novo Nordisk and Dexcom. M.L.E. reports having received speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Abbott Diabetes Care, Medtronic, AstraZeneca, and Ypsomed and acting on advisory boards for Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Zucara Therapeutics, Pila Pharma, and Abbott Diabetes Care. J.K.M. is a member of the advisory boards of Abbott Diabetes Care, BD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk AS, Prediktor A/S, Roche Diabetes Care, and Sanofi; received speaker honoraria from Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca, Dexcom, Eli Lilly and Company, Menarini Diagnostics, Novo Nordisk A/S, Roche Diabetes Care, Servier, and Ypsomed; and is a cofounder and shareholder of decide Clinical Software Ltd. R.H. reports having received speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly and Company, Dexcom, and Novo Nordisk; receiving license fees from Medtronic; receiving patents related to closed-loop systems; and being the director at CamDiab. M.F., A.T., F.M.C., A.G., D.E., N.T., N.D., and L.B. have no conflict of interest to disclose.

In contrast to adults, type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) is the most frequent form of diabetes in childhood and adolescence (> 90%). After diagnosis the management of children and adolescents with T1D should take place in highly specialized pediatric units experienced in pediatric diabetology. The lifelong substitution of insulin is the cornerstone of treatment whereby modalities need to be individually adapted for patient age and the family routine. In this age group the usage of diabetes technology (glucose sensors, insulinpumps and recently hybrid-closed-loop-systems) is recommended. An optimal metabolic control right from the start of therapy is associated with an improved long-term prognosis. Diabetes education is essential in the management of patients with diabetes and their families and needs to be performed by a multidisciplinary team consisting of a pediatric diabetologists, diabetes educator, dietitian, psychologist and social worker. The Austrian working group for pediatric endocrinology and diabetes (APEDÖ) and the ISPAD (International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes) recommend a metabolic goal of HbA1c ≤ 7.0%, ((IFCC) < 53 mmol/mol), and a "Time in range" > 70% for all pediatric age groups without the presence of severe hypoglycemia. Age-related physical, cognitive and psychosocial development, screening for associated diseases, avoidance of acute diabetes-related complications (severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis) and prevention of diabetes-related late complications to ensure high quality of life are the main goals of diabetes treatment in all pediatric age groups., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

This Guideline represents the recommendations of the Austrian Diabetes Association (ÖDG) on the use of diabetes technology (insulin pump therapy; continuous glucose monitoring, CGM; hybrid closed-loop systems, HCL; diabetes apps) and access to these technological innovations for people with diabetes mellitus based on current scientific evidence., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

The heterogenous category "specific types of diabetes due to other causes" encompasses disturbances in glucose metabolism due to other endocrine disorders such as acromegaly or hypercortisolism, drug-induced diabetes (e.g. antipsychotic medications, glucocorticoids, immunosuppressive agents, highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), checkpoint inhibitors), genetic forms of diabetes (e.g. Maturity Onset Diabetes of the Young (MODY), neonatal diabetes, Down‑, Klinefelter- and Turner Syndrome), pancreatogenic diabetes (e.g. postoperatively, pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, haemochromatosis, cystic fibrosis), and some rare autoimmune or infectious forms of diabetes. Diagnosis of specific diabetes types might influence therapeutic considerations. Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency is not only found in patients with pancreatogenic diabetes but is also frequently seen in type 1 and long-standing type 2 diabetes., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Aims/hypothesis: The aim of this work was to evaluate geographical variability and trends in the prevalence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), between 2006 and 2016, at the diagnosis of childhood-onset type 1 diabetes in 13 countries over three continents., Methods: An international retrospective study on DKA at diagnosis of diabetes was conducted. Data on age, sex, date of diabetes diagnosis, ethnic minority status and presence of DKA at diabetes onset were obtained from Australia, Austria, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, USA and the UK (Wales). Mean prevalence was estimated for the entire period, both overall and by country, adjusted for sex and age group. Temporal trends in annual prevalence of DKA were estimated using logistic regression analysis for each country, before and after adjustment for sex, age group and ethnic minority status., Results: During the study period, new-onset type 1 diabetes was diagnosed in 59,000 children (median age [interquartile range], 9.0 years [5.5-11.7]; male sex, 52.9%). The overall adjusted DKA prevalence was 29.9%, with the lowest prevalence in Sweden and Denmark and the highest in Luxembourg and Italy. The adjusted DKA prevalence significantly increased over time in Australia, Germany and the USA while it decreased in Italy. Preschool children, adolescents and children from ethnic minority groups were at highest risk of DKA at diabetes diagnosis in most countries. A significantly higher risk was also found for females in Denmark, Germany and Slovenia., Conclusions/interpretation: DKA prevalence at type 1 diabetes diagnosis varied considerably across countries, albeit it was generally high and showed a slight increase between 2006 and 2016. Increased awareness of symptoms to prevent delay in diagnosis is warranted, especially in preschool children, adolescents and children from ethnic minority groups.

Objective: To investigate temporal trends in glycemic control and severe hypoglycemia rates for pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes from 1995 to 2016 by analyzing data from the longitudinal, prospective, population-based German/Austrian (Diabetes Patient History Documentation [DPV]) and Western Australian (Western Australian Children's Diabetes Database [WACDD]) diabetes registries., Research Design and Methods: Patients diagnosed with type 1 diabetes aged <15 years were identified from the DPV ( N = 59,883) and WACDD ( N = 2,595) registries and data extracted for all clinic visits occurring between 1995 and 2016, inclusive. Mean HbA 1c and severe hypoglycemia (self-reported loss of consciousness/convulsion) rates were calculated per 100 patient-years., Results: Between 1995 and 2016, the annual mean HbA 1c decreased from 8.3 to 7.8% in the DPV cohort and from 9.2 to 8.3% in the WACDD cohort. Over the same period, the severe hypoglycemia rate decreased by an annual average of 2% (relative risk 0.983 [95% CI 0.981, 0.986]) in the DPV cohort and 6% (relative risk 0.935 [95% CI 0.934, 0.937]) in the WACDD cohort. Concomitant decreasing trends in both HbA 1c and severe hypoglycemia rates were observed in boys and girls, all age-groups, and injection therapy/pump regimen groups., Conclusions: Over the past two decades, there have been concurrent improvements in HbA 1c and decreasing severe hypoglycemia rates in two contemporary, longitudinal, population-based pediatric cohorts of type 1 diabetes. Translation of these data into clinical practice and patient education may reduce fear of hypoglycemia and enable better glycemic control., (© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: To evaluate the experiences of families with very young children aged 1 to 7 years (inclusive) with type 1 diabetes using day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery., Methods: Parents/caregivers of 20 children aged 1 to 7 years with type 1 diabetes completed a closed-loop experience survey following two 3-week periods of unrestricted day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin therapy using Cambridge FlorenceM system at home. Benefits, limitations, and improvements of closed-loop technology were explored., Results: Responders reported reduced burden of diabetes management, less time spent managing diabetes, and improved quality of sleep with closed-loop. Ninety percent of the responders felt less worried about their child's glucose control using closed-loop. Size of study devices, battery performance and connectivity issues were identified as areas for improvement. Parents/caregivers wished for more options to input information to the system such as temporary glucose targets., Conclusions: Parents/caregivers of very young children reported important quality of life benefits associated with using closed-loop, supporting adoption of this technology in this population., (© 2019 The Authors. Pediatric Diabetes published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

This position statement represents the recommendations of the Austrian Diabetes Association regarding the clinical diagnostic and therapeutic application, safety and benefits of continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring systems in patients with diabetes, based on current evidence.

The heterogenous catagory "specific types of diabetes due to other causes" encompasses disturbances in glucose metabolism due to other endocrine disorders such as acromegaly or hypercortisolism, drug-induced diabetes (e. g. antipsychotic medications, glucocorticoids, immunosuppressive agents, highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART)), genetic forms of diabetes (e. g. Maturity Onset Diabetes of the Young (MODY), neonatal diabetes, Down Syndrome, Klinefelter Syndrome, Turner Syndrome), pancreatogenic diabetes (e. g. postoperatively, pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, haemochromatosis, cystic fibrosis), and some rare autoimmune or infectious forms of diabetes. Diagnosis of specific diabetes types might influence therapeutic considerations. Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency is not only found in patients with pancreatogenic diabetes but is also frequently seen in type 1 and long-standing type 2 diabetes.

This article gives a short summary of standardized documentation for pediatric diabetology from a European perspective. The approach chosen by the Austrian/German DPV (Diabetes Patienten Verlaufsdokumentation) group is detailed. The electronic health record used is briefly described, as are external benchmarking reports and national and international comparisons. Similar initiatives like the Hvidore study group, the SWEET initiative (Pediatric Diabetes: Working to Create Centers of Reference in Europe), and the T1DExchange (Type 1 Diabetes Exchange Registry) are compared to the DPV effort., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© 2016 Diabetes Technology Society.)