Search

Aim: The purpose of this study was to develop a questionnaire to examine the future acceptance of Automatic insulin delivery systems (AIDs), their perceived usefulness, ease of use, and trust in the device in subjects with type 1 diabetes (T1D)., Methods: A questionnaire in Italian, based on the Technology Acceptance Model, was developed to examine intention to use AIDs, considered as a measure of future acceptance, and its determinants to use the system. A total of 43 questions for children and 46 for parents were included, and a 5-point Likert scale was used., Results: 239 subjects with T1D using multiple daily injections (MDI) or sensor-augmented pump (SAP) and their parents completed the questionnaire. The completion rate was excellent, with almost 100% of items answered. The overall Cronbach's coefficient for children and adolescents was 0.92 and 0.93 for parents, indicating excellent internal consistency in both groups. Parent-youth agreement was 0.699 (95% confidence interval: 0.689-0.709), indicating a good agreement between the two evaluations. Factor analysis identified measurement factors for the "artificial pancreas (AP)-acceptance labeled benefits and hassles of AIDs, and the internal consistency of the total scale was alpha = 0.94 for subjects with T1D and 0.95 for parents. The level of AP acceptance was more than neutral: 3.91 ± 0.47 and 3.99 ± 0.43 (p = 0.07) for youths and parents, respectively (possible score range 1 to 5, neutral score is 3.0). Parents reported higher scores in the benefit items than children-adolescents (p = 0.04)., Conclusions: We developed a new questionnaire based on the items available in the literature, and we demonstrated that the "AP-acceptance" reveals a meaningful factor structure, good internal reliability, and agreement between parent-young people evaluations. This measure could be a valuable resource for clinicians and researchers to assess AP acceptance in pediatric patients with T1D and their parents. This patient profiling approach could help to enroll candidates for AIDs with proper expectations and who most likely will benefit from the system., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) is one of the most common Disorders of Sexual Differentiation (DSDs). AIS is characterized by an X-linked recessive inheritance pattern associated with variants in the androgen receptor (AR) gene that affects the masculinization process in individuals with XY karyotype. Here, we report a neonatal case of a very early diagnosis of complete AIS due to a novel variant in the AR gene. In the present case, after the clinical evaluation, the infant has undergone the following tests: biochemical analyses, including newborn screening workflow, karyotype analysis, and Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) panel of 50 genes involved in DSDs. The NGS analysis identified a missense variant, c.2108C>A, in the AR gene. According to a cytogenetic analysis, the patient presented a 46, XY karyotype, thus the resulting hemizygote for the AR gene variant. The variant is not currently described in the literature nor in the ClinVar database. However, according to computational models, the variant could have a pathogenetic effect. This clinical case reveals a novel variant of the AR gene with a possible pathogenetic effect associated with AIS and highlights the importance of a multidisciplinary approach for the timely diagnosis and appropriate follow-up of the patient.

There has been continuous progress in diabetes management over the last few decades, not least due to the widespread dissemination of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and automated insulin delivery systems. These technological advances have radically changed the daily lives of people living with diabetes, improving the quality of life of both children and their families. Despite this, hypoglycemia remains the primary side-effect of insulin therapy. Based on a systematic review of the available scientific evidence, this paper aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for recognizing, risk stratifying, treating, and managing patients with hypoglycemia. The objective of these recommendations is to unify the behavior of pediatric diabetologists with respect to the timely recognition and prevention of hypoglycemic episodes and the correct treatment of hypoglycemia, especially in patients using CGM or advanced hybrid closed-loop systems. All authors have long experience in the specialty and are members of the Italian Society of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology. The goal of treating hypoglycemia is to raise blood glucose above 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) and to prevent further decreases. Oral glucose at a dose of 0.3 g/kg (0.1 g/kg for children using "smart pumps" or hybrid closed loop systems in automated mode) is the preferred treatment for the conscious individual with blood glucose <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L), although any form of carbohydrate (e.g., sucrose, which consists of glucose and fructose, or honey, sugary soft drinks, or fruit juice) containing glucose may be used. Using automatic insulin delivery systems, the oral glucose dose can be decreased to 0.1 g/kg. Practical flow charts are included to aid clinical decision-making. Although representing the official position of the Italian Society of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology (ISPED), these guidelines are applicable to the global audience and are especially pertinent in the era of CGM and other advanced technologies., Competing Interests: The 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. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (Copyright © 2024 Zucchini, Tumini, Scaramuzza, Bonfanti, Delvecchio, Franceschi, Iafusco, Lenzi, Mozzillo, Passanisi, Piona, Rabbone, Rapini, Rigamonti, Ripoli, Salzano, Savastio, Schiaffini, Zanfardino, Cherubini and Diabetes Study Group of the Italian Society for Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes.)

In people with type 1 diabetes, Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) systems adjust insulin delivery in response to sensor glucose data and consist of three components: an insulin pump, a continuous glucose sensor, and an algorithm that determines insulin delivery. To date, all the available AID systems require users to announce carbohydrate intake and deliver meal boluses, as well as respond to system alarms. The use of AID devices both initially and over time may be influenced by a variety of psychological factors. Analysis of patient-related outcomes should be taken into account, while recruiting applicants for the systems who are motivated and have realistic expectations in order to prevent AID dropout. We report an up-to-date summary of the available measures and semi-structured interview content to assess AID expectations, acceptance, and satisfaction using the AID systems. In conclusion, we suggest, before and after starting using AID systems, performing a specific evaluation of the related psychological implications, using validated measures and semi-structured interviews, that allows diabetes care providers to tailor their education approach to the factors that concern the patient at that time; they can teach problem-solving skills and other behavioral strategies to support sustained use of the AID system.

Background and Aim: To assess the incidence of Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) during the period 2012-2017, the frequency and severity of ketoacidosis (DKA) at diabetes onset, and the factors associated with DKA in children and adolescents younger than 18 years old in the Abruzzo region, Italy., Methods: All incident cases of T1DM (0-17 years old) diagnosed between January 2012 and December 2017 were included. Data about the patients were obtained from two independent sources; insulin prescriptions and medical records. Clinical data at diabetes onset, as well as demographic and non-demographic data, including center of first hospitalization, distance to regional reference center and number of pediatricians (per 1000 residents younger than 18 years) were collected and evaluated., Results: During 2012-2017 period, 177 patients were diagnosed with T1DM. In 2012, T1DM incidence was 15.6 per 100,000/year; in 2013, 16.4 per 100,000/year; in 2014, 11.6 per 100,000/year; in 2015, 14.2 per 100,000/year; in 2016, 16.2 per 100,000/year and in 2017, 12.2 per 100,000/year. DKA was present in 29.3% of patients, 6.9% with severe DKA. The DKA presence was correlated to age (p<0.02), ethnicity (p<0.04), being transferred to a specialist center instead of being directly admitted to one (p<0.002) and the number of pediatricians in the population (p<0.01). The DKA severity was associated with the delay of transfer (p<0.04)., Conclusions: Being admitted directly to a specialist center is very important and it could be expression of high alertness of pediatricians. Availability of well-trained pediatricians is necessary for the prevention of DKA. (www.actabiomedica.it).

Background: Currently, Italian versions of the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey for Children (CHFS) and for Parents (PHFS) quantifying Fear of Hypoglycemia (FoH) in pediatric diabetes are not available., Objective: To validate the Italian version of the CHFS and PHFS., Subjects and Methods: One hundred and seventy-four children with type 1 diabetes aged 6-18 and 178 parents completed the CHFS and PHFS, the PedsQL 3.0 Diabetes module and the KIDSCREEN-10. Internal consistency was good (α = 0.85 for CHFS, α = 0.88 for PHFS); validity was supported by correlations of CHFS total score (CHFS-T r = -0.50; p < 0.001, CI = -0.62 to -0.35) and Worry subscale (CHFS-W r = -0.49; p < 0.001, CI = -0.62 to -0.32) with measures of health-related quality of life (QoL), which were not related to PHFS scores. Factor analyses justified the structure and the separate scoring of Behavior and Worry subscales. Children's age was negatively correlated with CHFS-T (r = -0.16; p = 0.03, CI = -0.36 to 0.00), CHFS-W (r = -0.29; p = 0.02, CI = -0.39 to -0.07), PHFS-T (r = -0.20; p = 0.006, CI = -0.35 to -0.04), PHFS-B (r = -0.30; p = 0.001, CI = -0.43 to -0.17). Mean (SD) item scores of CHFS-T (1.47 ± 0.56 vs. 1.27 ± 0.57; p < 0.05) and CHFS-W (1.20 ± 0.73 vs. 0.96 ± 0.68; p < 0.05) were higher in children with HbA1c ≥7.5%. Higher levels of distress for upsetting hypoglycemia were associated with lower child's QoL scores as perceived by children (Peds-QL: 72.6 ± 12.8 vs. 80.4 ± 11.9; p < 0.001) and parents (Peds-QL: 70.6 ± 13.8 vs. 75.8 ± 12.9; p < 0.05)., Conclusion: The Italian version of CHFS and PHFS appears to be a valid measure to assess FoH in clinical practice and factor analysis supports separate scoring for the Worry and Behavior subscales., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)