Search

Background: This multicenter crossover study investigated the potential beneficial effect of an automated bolus calculator (ABC) in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) treated with multiple daily injections (MDI). Methods: Participants were randomized to either begin or end with a 5 months intervention versus their regular treatment regimen (control), separated by a 2 months washout period. During the intervention participants were carefully instructed to use the ABC (Accu-Check Aviva Expert) versus manual insulin calculations during the control period. Participants between 8 and 18 years of age with T1D were recruited from clinics in Denmark, Belgium, and Spain. Inclusion criteria included T1D for >1 year, a minimum of 3 months MDI treatment before inclusion, and HbA1c of 7.5%-11% (57-97 mmol/mol). Improvement in HbA1c was the main outcome, and improved quality of life (QoL) and glucose variability (time spent in target glucose) were secondary outcomes. Results: A total of 65 patients with a mean age of 13.25 years and a mean HbA1c of 8.25% (66.7 mmol/mol) were included. Midway evaluation after 2 months of intervention showed no significant difference from the standard care (0.297, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.645 to 0.054; P = 0.10). The difference remained insignificant after the 5 months of intervention (-0.143 [95% CI: -0.558 to 0.272; P = 0.51]). Using the ABC did not change the time spent in target glucose range, nor did it change the QoL. Conclusions: Our study did not demonstrate beneficial additive effects of an ABC in children and adolescents with T1D treated with MDI neither in HbA1c, nor in any other endpoint investigated.

Anxiety disorders are the most common mental disorder worldwide. Although anxiety disorders differ in the nature of feared objects or situations, they share a common mechanism by which fear generalizes to related but innocuous objects, eliciting avoidance of objects and situations that pose no objective risk. This overgeneralization appears to be a crucial mechanism in the persistence of anxiety psychopathology. In this study we test whether an intervention that promotes discrimination learning reduces generalization of fear, in particular, harm expectancy and avoidance compared to an irrelevant (control) training. Healthy participants (N = 80) were randomly allocated to a training condition. Using a fear conditioning paradigm, participants first learned visual danger and safety signals (set 1). Baseline level of stimulus generalization was tested with ambiguous stimuli on a spectrum between the danger and safety signals. There were no differences between the training groups. Participants then received the stimulus discrimination training or a control training. After training, participants learned a new set of danger and safety signals (set 2), and the level of harm expectancy generalization and behavioural avoidance of ambiguous stimuli was tested. Although the training groups did not differ in fear generalization on a cognitive level (harm expectancy), the results showed a different pattern of avoidance of ambiguous stimuli, with the discrimination training group showing less avoidance of stimuli that resembled the safety signals. These results support the potential of interventions that promote discrimination learning in the treatment of anxiety disorders.