Search

Background: Type 1 diabetes in young children is a heavy parental burden. As part of pilot phase of the KIDSAP01 study, we conducted a baseline assessment in parents to study the association between hypoglycemia fear, parental well-being and child behavior., Methods: All parents were invited to fill in baseline questionnaires: hypoglycemia fear survey (HFS), WHO-5, Epworth Sleepiness Scale and Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)., Results: 24 children (median age: 5-year, range 1-7 years, 63% male, mean diabetes duration: 3 ± 1.7 years) participated. 23/24 parents filled out the questionnaires. We found a higher score for the hypoglycemia fear behavior 33.9 ± 5.6 compared to hypoglycemia worry 34.6 ± 12.2. Median WHO-5 score was 16 (8 - 22) with poor well-being in two parents. Median daytime sleepiness score was high in five parents (>10). For six children a high total behavioral difficulty score (>16) was reported. Pro social behavior score was lower than normal in six children (<6). Parental well-being was negatively associated with HFS total ( r = - 0.50, p <.05) and subscale scores ( r = - 0.44, p <.05 for HFS-Worry and HFS-Behavior), child behavior ( r = - 0.45, p = .05) and positively with child age and diabetes duration ( r = 0.58, p <.01, r = 0.6, p <.01). HFS, parental well-being nor daytime sleepiness are associated with the HbA1c., Conclusion: Regular screening of parental well-being, hypoglycemia fear and child behavior should be part of routine care to target early intervention., Competing Interests: MT reports having received speaker honoraria from Minimed Medtronic and Novo Nordisk. MFr has received speaker honoraria from Minimed Medtronic and has served on advisory boards for Eli Lilly. JM is a member in the advisory board of Becton-Dickinson, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Medtronic and Sanofi, and has received speaker honoraria from ABBOTT Diabetes Care, Astra Zeneca, Eli Lilly, Nintamed, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi, Servier and Takeda. MW has received license fees from Becton Dickinson and has served as a consultant to Beckton Dickinson. SH declares speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly and Sanofi. EF-R reports having received speaker honoraria from Minimed Medtronic and Eli Lilly, serving on advisory boards for Eli Lilly. TK has received speaker honoraria from Minimed Medtronic, Roche and Eli Lilly and is member of an advisory board for ABBOTTt Diabetes Care. CdB has received speaker honoraria from Minimed Medtronic and is member of their European Psychology Advisory Board. FC does attend Advisory Boards and obtain speaking fees for ABBOTTt, Medtronic, Lilly, and NovoNordisk. BR-M reports having received speaker honoraria from Minimed Medtronic, Eli Lilly, Roche, Menarini and Novo Nordisk, serving on advisory boards for Eli Lilly. RH reports having received speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly, Dexcom and Novo Nordisk, receiving license fees from Medtronic, and being director at CamDiab. 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 © 2021 de Beaufort, Pit-ten Cate, Schierloh, Cohen, Boughton, Tauschmann, Allen, Nagl, Fritsch, Yong, Metcalfe, Schaeffer, Fichelle, Thiele, Abt, Faninger, Mader, Slegtenhorst, Ashcroft, Wilinska, Sibayan, Kollman, Hofer, Fröhlich-Reiterer, Kapellen, Acerini, Campbell, Rami-Merhar and Hovorka.)

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.)

Objective: We aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in children with type 1 diabetes aged 1-7 years as well as evaluate the role of diluted insulin on glucose control., Research Design and Methods: In an open-label, multicenter, multinational, randomized crossover study, 24 children with type 1 diabetes on insulin pump therapy (median age 5 years [interquartile range 3-6] and mean ± SD HbA 1c 7.4 ± 0.7% [57 ± 8 mmol/mol] and total insulin 13.2 ± 4.8 units/day) underwent two 21-day periods of unrestricted living and we compared hybrid closed-loop with diluted insulin (U20) and hybrid closed-loop with standard strength insulin (U100) in random order. During both interventions, the Cambridge model predictive control algorithm was used., Results: The proportion of time that sensor glucose was in the target range between 3.9 and 10 mmol/L (primary end point) was not different between interventions (mean ± SD 72 ± 8% vs. 70 ± 7% for closed-loop with diluted insulin vs. closed-loop with standard insulin, respectively; P = 0.16). There was no difference in mean glucose levels (8.0 ± 0.8 vs. 8.2 ± 0.6 mmol/L; P = 0.14), glucose variability (SD of sensor glucose 3.1 ± 0.5 vs. 3.2 ± 0.4 mmol/L; P = 0.16), or the proportion of time spent with sensor glucose <3.9 mmol/L (4.5 ± 1.7% vs. 4.7 ± 1.4%; P = 0.47) or <2.8 mmol/L (0.6 ± 0.5% vs. 0.6 ± 0.4%; P > 0.99). Total daily insulin delivery did not differ (17.3 ± 5.6 vs. 18.9 ± 6.9 units/day; P = 0.07). No closed-loop-related severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis occurred., Conclusions: Unrestricted home use of day-and-night closed-loop in very young children with type 1 diabetes is feasible and safe. The use of diluted insulin during closed-loop does not provide additional benefits compared with standard strength insulin., (© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Background & Aims: Antioxidant intake can affect both free radical and the nutritional status of children receiving cancer treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate whether children with cancer met their antioxidant requirements., Methods: A prospective observational study was performed at a single hospital in England from June 2008 to February 2010. Children with a solid tumour, lymphoma or leukaemia were included. Dietary intakes including 3 modes of feeding ('diet alone', 'diet + tube' feeding or 'diet + vitamin-mineral supplementation' (VMS)) were collected with an estimated food record (EFR) 1 and 3 month post-diagnosis. Four and 24-hr food recalls were performed to validate the food records., Results: Forty two children were included: 57% leukaemia or lymphoma and 43% solid tumours. Sixty seven percent underwent chemotherapy and 33% a combination of therapies. In months 1 and 3, greater numbers of children achieved ≥100% of requirements for 'diet + VMS' (p < 0.05) than for other feeding modes. However, considerable proportions of all feeding groups did not achieve 100% of the Recommended Nutrient Intake (RNI) for vitamin A, C, E, selenium and zinc. This was most marked in the 'diet alone' group. Significant proportions did not achieve the Lower Recommended Nutrient Intake (LRNI) for some antioxidants. The 'diet alone' group had the highest proportion not meeting LRNI for vitamin A (p << 0.001; 1st month) and zinc (p < 0.02; 3rd month)., Conclusion: Inadequate antioxidant intake was observed in a significant proportion of cancer patients when feeding was not augmented in any way. More research is required to determine the clinical implications of these findings., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.)