Search

In a search for evidence of a possible viral etiology for human leukemia, a comparison was made of the incidence of childhood leukemia among babies receiving exchange blood transfusion and those who had no such transfusion. During a 16-year period in the state of Oregon, no difference in the likelihood of contracting leukemia was detected between the two groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to article "Deaths and Injuries From House Fires," by Gregory R. Istre et al. in the June 21, 2001 issue.

Aims: There are marked inequities in clinical outcomes and rates of diabetes technology use among youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). The quantitative data from our mixed methods cohort study identified significant improvements in glycaemia and quality of life in participants. We aimed to use qualitative methods to provide further insight into our quantitative findings in the setting of underlying health disparities., Methods: Fifteen publicly insured, insulin pump-naïve non-Hispanic Black youth aged 6-21 years with T1D and baseline haemoglobin A 1c (HbA 1c ) ≥86 mmol/mol (10%) and their parents participated in a mixed methods cohort study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted separately with parents and youth after completion of 6 months of HCL use. Three topic areas were explored: (1) Experience using HCL, (2) barriers to HCL and (3) facilitators to accessing HCL. Semantic content analysis and consensus coding involving two team members were used to generate themes. Thematic saturation was achieved., Results: Youth (Median age 14.9 years, 67% female) and parents (92% female) were interviewed. Youth and their parents reported that access to HCL provides a new outlook on living with T1D, although managing T1D is still hard. They felt that diabetes technology is most helpful for those struggling with management. Participants experienced barriers to access including misconceptions of HCL systems, clinician bias and systemic racism. They suggested these barriers can be overcome by offering diabetes technology education for all people with T1D, increasing awareness of HCL in the community and providing resources to overcome barriers created by social determinants of health., Conclusions: The voices of historically minoritised youth with suboptimal T1D control and their parents provide important, previously unreported experiences and perspectives on barriers and facilitators to using HCL that will shape interventions to improve equity in access to diabetes technology., (© 2024 Diabetes UK.)

Introduction: Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is the leading cause of mortality among youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Guidelines for DKA prevention exist; however, specific guidance about when to check ketones and how to manage youth using insulin pumps and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems is lacking., Methods: A 35-item online survey exploring clinical ketone management practices for youth with T1D in the USA was distributed to diabetes healthcare professionals (HCPs). Survey responses, including multiple-choice and Likert scale questions, were summarized and rates of agreement and disagreement (Likert scale 4, 5 vs. 1, 2, 3) are reported., Results: In total, 123 HCPs (51% physicians, 26% diabetes educators, 19% nurse practitioners) from 47 institutions completed the survey. Seventy percent worked at academic specialty centers. Ninety-seven percent reported >50% continuous glucose monitoring use in their clinic and 72% reported >50% insulin pump use. Although 79% reported having ketone management protocols, the level and duration of hyperglycemia at which ketone monitoring was advised ranged from >200 to 350 mg/dL and from 0 min to >6 h of duration. While 72% had distinct ketone management protocols for pump users, only 29% had specific protocols for AID. Sixty-two percent agreed that DKA due to infusion site failure was a significant problem in their practice, and 70% agreed there was a need to standardize ketone management guidelines., Conclusions: The preventable nature and high incidence of DKA highlight the need to build consensus for clinical ketone management and to develop tools to facilitate management, especially as the use of diabetes technologies continues to increase., (© 2024 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Youth starting Omnipod 5 (OP5) can onboard with a diabetes educator or self-start with support from online, industry-provided educational modules. We compared glycemic control and pump interaction by training type among youth initiating OP5. Methods: This retrospective review included 297 youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D) aged <22 years initiating OP5. We analyzed baseline continuous glucose monitor (CGM) data and pump and CGM data from the first 90 days of OP5 use. Multilevel mixed-effects regression assessed for changes in time in range (TIR) from baseline to 90 days by training type. Results: Of youth initiating OP5, 42.4% trained with a diabetes educator and 57.6% self-started. At baseline, self-starters had a longer T1D duration (5.0 (2.6,7.9) vs. 2.5 (1.3, 5.5) years, P = 0.001), more time <54 mg/dL (0.3% (0.1,1) vs. 0.15% (0,1), P = 0.01), and a higher coefficient of variation (40.2% (37, 44.4) vs. 38.7% (34.4, 42.4), P = 0.004). After 90 days of OP5 use, groups did not differ in time in automated mode or boluses per day. In a longitudinal model, after adjusting for baseline TIR and T1D duration, 90-day TIR was 10.5%-points higher (CI: 9.2-11.8, P < 0.0001), positively associated with baseline TIR (β = 0.82, CI: 0.78-0.85, P < 0.0001), and 1.1%-points greater among self-starters (CI: 0.06-2.2; P = 0.04). Conclusions: After 90 days of OP5 use, glycemic control and pump interactions were minimally different between youth who self-started and those who trained with a diabetes educator. For youth at a tertiary care center previously using an Omnipod system, online educational modules offered by industry provide sufficient training for use.

Background: We assessed changes in glycemic control and person-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ technology use among historically minoritized youth who are least likely to access hybrid closed loop (HCL) technology. Methods: This single-arm, prospective pilot study enrolled 15 publicly insured, insulin pump-naïve, non-Hispanic Black youth ages 6 to <21 years with type 1 diabetes and hemoglobin A 1c (HbA 1c ) ≥10% in a 6-month study of HCL use. The primary outcome was absolute change in time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL). Secondary outcomes included other continuous glucose monitor metrics, PROMs, and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) incidence. Results: For 13 youth (median 14.8 years, 53.3% female, HbA 1c 11.7%) who completed the study, baseline TIR of 12.3% (6.3-27.1%) increased 23.7%-points (16.9, 30.5%; P  < 0.001) or 5.7 h per day. Percent time >250 mg/dL decreased 33.9%-points (-44.8, -23.1%; P  < 0.001) or 8.1 h per day from a baseline of 69.4% (51.6, 84.0%). Median time in HCL was 78.3% (59.7, 87.3%). Youth received 10.1 (9.2, 11.9) boluses per day, 71.7% (63.8, 79.3%) of which were HCL-initiated autoboluses. Diabetes-specific quality of life increased among parents ( P  < 0.001) and youth ( P  = 0.004), and diabetes distress decreased in both groups ( P  < 0.001, P  = 0.005). Improvements in glycemia did not correlate with any baseline youth or parent PROMs. DKA was high at baseline (67 episodes/100-person years) and did not increase during the intervention (72 episodes/100-person years, P  = 0.78). Conclusion: Improvements in glycemic control and quality of life exceeding pivotal trial findings without increased safety risks among historically minoritized youth emphasize the need for equitable access to HCL systems. ClinicalTrials.gov: clinicaltrials.gov ID (NCT04807374).

Background: Pivotal trials of diabetes technologies have demonstrated glycemic improvements; however, these trials include patients of limited diversity and ranges of glycemic control. We assessed changes in glycemic control during the first 90 days of Omnipod 5 use in a real-world cohort of youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: Youth 2-21 years with T1D initiating Omnipod 5 at two pediatric academic centers were included. Fourteen days of baseline (BL) continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data were compared against data from the first 90 days of Omnipod 5 use. Outcome measures included changes in time in range (TIR), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and CGM and insulin pump metrics based on the duration of Omnipod 5 use. Results: Among 195 youth (78.9% non-Hispanic White, 15.4% publicly insured, age 11.7 years, T1D duration 3.3 years) TIR increased 11%-points, from 49% to 61% ( P  < 0.001), and HbA1c decreased 0.5%-points, from 7.5% to 6.9% ( P  < 0.001). TIR improved within the first 9 days of Omnipod 5 use ( p  < 0.001) and did not change significantly thereafter ( P  = 0.1) despite decreases in user-initiated boluses (5.1 vs. 5.0, P  = 0.01) and carbohydrate entries (4.2 vs. 4.1, P  = 0.005) from days 1-9 to days 1-90. TIR improved 15%-points among youth with BL TIR <60% compared to a 5%-point increase for youth with BL TIR ≥60% ( P  < 0.001). Conclusions: Glycemic control improved within 9 days of Omnipod 5 initiation in this real-world cohort, and improvements were sustained over the first 90 days of use despite concomitant decreases in user-initiated boluses. These improvements were comparable to those observed in the pivotal trial.

Aims: Hybrid closed loop (HCL) insulin delivery systems improve glycemia and quality of life among youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D), however there are inequities in use. We aimed to evaluate whether differences in positive expectancy of HCL systems may explain differences in use., Methods: Fifteen publicly-insured, non-Hispanic Black (NHB) youth with hemoglobin A1 C (HbA1c) ≥ 10% enrolled in a study exploring changes in glycemia and person reported outcomes (PRO) during 6 months of Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ technology. At baseline youth and parents completed PROs, including Insulin Delivery Systems: Perceptions, Ideas, Reflections and Expectations (INSPIRE) survey assessing positive expectancy of HCL use, and Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) survey assessing diabetes-related distress. Differences between this cohort and the Tandem Control-IQ pediatric pivotal trial (DCLP5) cohort were assessed., Results: As compared to the DCLP5 cohort (0% NHB, 10% publicly-insured), baseline glycemic indicators were suboptimal (M HbA1c 11.9 ± 1.4% vs 7.6 ± 0.9%, p < 0.0001; continuous glucose monitor (CGM) time-above-range > 180 mg/dL 82 ± 15% vs 45 ± 18%, p < 0.0001). INSPIRE scores in both cohorts were equally high among youth (80 ± 10 vs 77 ± 13, p = 0.41) and parents (88 ± 14 vs 85 ± 11, p = 0.37). PAID scores were higher among parents (68 ± 19 vs 43 ± 16, p < 0.0001), but not youth (43 ± 16 vs 35 ± 16, p = 0.09) in the historically marginalized cohort as compared to the DCLP5 cohort., Conclusions: Despite differences in glycemic control and diabetes related burden, positive expectancy of HCL systems is comparable among historically marginalized youth with T1D and the predominantly non-Hispanic White, privately insured DCLP5 cohort. These findings suggest that differences in perceptions of HCL technology may not explain inequities in use., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: J.B.G. has research support from the American Diabetes Association (7–21-PDFHD-09) and research supplies from Dexcom. A.P. has received investigator-initiated research support from Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. (TDC20210226), and research supplies from Dexcom. MM is currently employed at the National Institutes of Health (NIH); all work on this trial was completed prior to her employment at NIH. B.E.M. is supported by the National Institutes of Health (PI: Marks, NIH: K23DK129827), and has received investigator-initiated research support from Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc, and research supplies from Dexcom. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Currently available semiautomated insulin-delivery systems require individualized insulin regimens for the initialization of therapy and meal doses based on carbohydrate counting for routine operation. In contrast, the bionic pancreas is initialized only on the basis of body weight, makes all dose decisions and delivers insulin autonomously, and uses meal announcements without carbohydrate counting., Methods: In this 13-week, multicenter, randomized trial, we randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio persons at least 6 years of age with type 1 diabetes either to receive bionic pancreas treatment with insulin aspart or insulin lispro or to receive standard care (defined as any insulin-delivery method with unblinded, real-time continuous glucose monitoring). The primary outcome was the glycated hemoglobin level at 13 weeks. The key secondary outcome was the percentage of time that the glucose level as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring was below 54 mg per deciliter; the prespecified noninferiority limit for this outcome was 1 percentage point. Safety was also assessed., Results: A total of 219 participants 6 to 79 years of age were assigned to the bionic-pancreas group, and 107 to the standard-care group. The glycated hemoglobin level decreased from 7.9% to 7.3% in the bionic-pancreas group and did not change (was at 7.7% at both time points) in the standard-care group (mean adjusted difference at 13 weeks, -0.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.6 to -0.3; P<0.001). The percentage of time that the glucose level as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring was below 54 mg per deciliter did not differ significantly between the two groups (13-week adjusted difference, 0.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.04; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The rate of severe hypoglycemia was 17.7 events per 100 participant-years in the bionic-pancreas group and 10.8 events per 100 participant-years in the standard-care group (P = 0.39). No episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in either group., Conclusions: In this 13-week, randomized trial involving adults and children with type 1 diabetes, use of a bionic pancreas was associated with a greater reduction than standard care in the glycated hemoglobin level. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04200313.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: As of March 2019, JUUL electronic cigarettes are the most popular e-cigarette on the U.S. market, but little is known of nicotine exposure and dependence on JUUL and user experience., Methods: JUUL users participated in a community-based study involving questionnaires, saliva collection and a qualitative interview., Results: Fifteen participants were enrolled (80% male, 53% White) and had an average age of 29.8 (standard deviation = 10) years. Daily exposure to nicotine assessed via salivary cotinine was similar to those reported for other e-cigarette and tobacco cigarette users in general. The majority reported low to moderate nicotine dependence. Qualitative interview themes included: the importance of social networks in adoption and use of the product; device features such as small size and vapor cloud reinforced product use; the product provided satisfaction compared to a tobacco cigarette; and a perceived sense of addiction to the product., Conclusions: JUUL e-cigarettes expose users to levels of nicotine similar to other e-cigarettes but may be more satisfying due to unique device features. JUUL may be quite acceptable to tobacco cigarette smokers who are seeking to quit. However, it holds addictive potential and can reinforce long-term nicotine use., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Collaborative relationships between hospitals and physicians can take many forms. Before you choose your strategy, consider the benefits and drawbacks of each. Many of America's hospitals and physicians are rushing to integrate their services through a variety of collaborative options. Their haste has been encouraged by many factors. Before hospitals and physicians react to the driving forces around them, they should carefully consider the pros and cons of four types of collaborative options: 1. management service organizations, 2. physician-hospital organizations, 3. practice acquisition models, 4. equity models.