Search

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.

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.

The significant and growing global prevalence of diabetes continues to challenge people with diabetes (PwD), healthcare providers, and payers. While maintaining near-normal glucose levels has been shown to prevent or delay the progression of the long-term complications of diabetes, a significant proportion of PwD are not attaining their glycemic goals. During the past 6 years, we have seen tremendous advances in automated insulin delivery (AID) technologies. Numerous randomized controlled trials and real-world studies have shown that the use of AID systems is safe and effective in helping PwD achieve their long-term glycemic goals while reducing hypoglycemia risk. Thus, AID systems have recently become an integral part of diabetes management. However, recommendations for using AID systems in clinical settings have been lacking. Such guided recommendations are critical for AID success and acceptance. All clinicians working with PwD need to become familiar with the available systems in order to eliminate disparities in diabetes quality of care. This report provides much-needed guidance for clinicians who are interested in utilizing AIDs and presents a comprehensive listing of the evidence payers should consider when determining eligibility criteria for AID insurance coverage., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society.)

Background: The possible advantage of hybrid closed-loop therapy (i.e., artificial pancreas) over sensor-augmented pump therapy in very young children with type 1 diabetes is unclear., Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, crossover trial, we recruited children 1 to 7 years of age with type 1 diabetes who were receiving insulin-pump therapy at seven centers across Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, and the United Kingdom. Participants received treatment in two 16-week periods, in random order, in which the closed-loop system was compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy (control). The primary end point was the between-treatment difference in the percentage of time that the sensor glucose measurement was in the target range (70 to 180 mg per deciliter) during each 16-week period. The analysis was conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle. Key secondary end points included the percentage of time spent in a hyperglycemic state (glucose level, >180 mg per deciliter), the glycated hemoglobin level, the mean sensor glucose level, and the percentage of time spent in a hypoglycemic state (glucose level, <70 mg per deciliter). Safety was assessed., Results: A total of 74 participants underwent randomization. The mean (±SD) age of the participants was 5.6±1.6 years, and the baseline glycated hemoglobin level was 7.3±0.7%. The percentage of time with the glucose level in the target range was 8.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.4 to 9.9) higher during the closed-loop period than during the control period (P<0.001). The mean adjusted difference (closed-loop minus control) in the percentage of time spent in a hyperglycemic state was -8.5 percentage points (95% CI, -9.9 to -7.1), the difference in the glycated hemoglobin level was -0.4 percentage points (95% CI, -0.5 to -0.3), and the difference in the mean sensor glucose level was -12.3 mg per deciliter (95% CI, -14.8 to -9.8) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). The time spent in a hypoglycemic state was similar with the two treatments (P = 0.74). The median time spent in the closed-loop mode was 95% (interquartile range, 92 to 97) over the 16-week closed-loop period. One serious adverse event of severe hypoglycemia occurred during the closed-loop period. One serious adverse event that was deemed to be unrelated to treatment occurred., Conclusions: A hybrid closed-loop system significantly improved glycemic control in very young children with type 1 diabetes, without increasing the time spent in hypoglycemia. (Funded by the European Commission and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03784027.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Available basal insulin regimes differ in pharmacokinetic profiles, which may be related to subsequent changes in anthropometry in patients with type 1 diabetes. This analysis elucidates the standardized height and body mass index development (height and BMI standard deviation score [height-SDS and BMI-SDS]) in pediatric type 1 diabetes patients depending on the choice of basal insulin., Methods: Longitudinal data of 10 338 German/Austrian patients from the Diabetes Prospective Follow-up (DPV, Diabetes Patienten Verlaufsdokumentation) database were analyzed. Patients aged 5.0 to 16.9 years were treated exclusively with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH), insulin detemir (IDet), insulin glargine (IGla), or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) for at least 3 years. Population-based German reference data were used to calculate height-SDS and BMI-SDS. Multiple linear regression was conducted., Results: BMI-SDS increased significantly in all regimes (NPH P = .0365; IDet P = .0003; IGla P < .0001; and CSII P < .0001). Direct comparison of the therapies revealed a favorable association only for NPH vs IGla. A rise in BMI-SDS was observed for all insulins in females, but only for IGla in males. BMI-SDS increment was not observed before 8 years of age. Initially and at the end of the observation period, mean height was above the 50th percentile of the reference population. Across the cohort, height-SDS declined during the observation period, except for CSII. Apart from the 5.0- to 7.9-year-old subgroup, long-acting insulin analogues were associated with a significant loss of height-SDS., Conclusions: Choice of basal insulin regimen might influence height development. CSII appeared to have a favorable effect on growth trajectories. All therapies were associated with an increase of BMI-SDS, most evident in females., (© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Diabetes published by Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai JiaoTong University School of Medicine and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

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: To quantify age-related variability of insulin needs during day and night closed-loop insulin delivery., Research Design and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from hybrid closed-loop studies involving young children (1-6 years old, n = 20), children (7-12 years, n = 21), adolescents (13-17 years, n = 15), and adults (>18 years, n = 58) with type 1 diabetes. The coefficient of variation quantified variability of insulin needs during 3 weeks of unrestricted-living hybrid closed-loop use., Results: Data from 2,365 nights and 2,367 days in 114 participants were analyzed. The coefficient of variation of insulin delivery was higher in young children compared with adults (mean difference at nighttime 10.7 percentage points [95% CI 2.9-18.4], P = 0.003; daytime 6.4 percentage points [95% CI 2.0-10.9], P = 0.002) and compared with adolescents (mean difference at nighttime 10.2 percentage points [95% CI 0.0-20.4], P = 0.049; daytime 7.0 percentage points [95% CI 1.1-12.8], P = 0.014)., Conclusions: Diabetes management in young children is complicated by higher variability in insulin requirements, supporting fast-track clinical practice adoption of closed-loop in this vulnerable population., (© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.)

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: Studies have shown that overnight closed-loop insulin delivery can improve glucose control and reduce the risk of hypoglycemia and hence may improve metabolic outcomes and reduce burden for children with type 1 diabetes and their families. However, research so far has not reported insulin levels while comparing closed-loop to open-loop insulin delivery in children. Therefore, in this study we obtained glucose levels as well as plasma insulin levels in children with type 1 diabetes to evaluate the efficacy of a model-based closed-loop algorithm compared to an open-loop administration., Methods: Fifteen children with type 1 diabetes, 6-12 years, participated in this open-label single center study. We used a randomized cross over design in which we compared overnight closed-loop insulin delivery with sensor augmented pump therapy for two nights in both the hospital and at home (i.e., 1 night in-patient stay and at home per treatment condition). Only during the in-patient stay, hourly plasma insulin and blood glucose levels were assessed and are reported in this paper., Results: Results of paired sample t-tests revealed that although plasma insulin levels were significantly lower during the closed-loop than in the open-loop (Mean difference 36.51 pmol/l; t(13) = 2.13, p = .03, effect size d = 0.57), blood glucose levels did not vary between conditions (mean difference 0.76 mmol/l; t(13) = 1.24, p = .12, d = 0.37). The administered dose of insulin was significantly lower during the closed-loop compared with the open-loop (mean difference 0.10 UI; t(12) = 2.45, p = .02, d = 0.68)., Conclusions: Lower insulin doses were delivered in the closed-loop, resulting in lower plasma insulin levels, whereby glucose levels were not affected negatively. This suggests that the closed-loop administration is better targeted and hence could be more effective., Competing Interests: This project is funded by the EU Framework 7 Programme, grant 305343. Devices have been kindly offered by Abbott (Belgium), Dexcom (Netherlands) and Sooil (Van der Linde, Belgium). This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Background: In attempting to achieve optimal metabolic control, the day-to-day management is challenging for a child with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and his family and can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Augmenting an insulin pump with glucose sensor information leads to improved outcomes: decreased haemoglobin A1c levels, increased time in glucose target and less hypoglycaemia. Fear of nocturnal hypoglycaemia remains pervasive amongst parents, leading to chronic sleep interruption and lack of sleep for the parents and their children. The QUEST study, an open-label, single-centre randomized crossover study, aims to evaluate the impact on time in target, in hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia and the effect on sleep and quality of life in children with T1D, comparing a sensor-augmented pump (SAP) with predictive low glucose suspend and alerts to the use of the same insulin pump with a flash glucose measurement (FGM) device not interacting with the pump., Methods/design: Subjects meeting the inclusion criteria are randomized to treatment with the SAP or treatment with an insulin pump and independent FGM for 5 weeks. Following a 3-week washout period, the subjects cross over to the other study arm for 5 weeks. During the week before and in the last week of treatment, the subjects and one of their caregivers wear a sleep monitor in order to obtain sleep data. The primary endpoint is the between-arm difference in percentage of time in glucose target during the final 6 days of each treatment arm, measured by a blinded continuous glucose measurement (CGM). Additional endpoints include comparison of quantity and quality of sleep as well as quality of life perception of the subjects and one of their caregivers in the two different treatment arms. Recruitment started in February 2017. A total of 36 patients are planned to be randomized. The study recruitment was completed in April 2018., Discussion: With this study we will provide more information on whether insulin pump treatment combined with more technology (SmartGuard® feature and alerts) leads to better metabolic control. The inclusion of indicators on quality of sleep with less sleep interruption, less lack of sleep and perception of quality of life in both children and their primary caregivers is essential for this study and might help to guide us to further treatment improvement., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03103867 . Registered on 6 April 2017.

Objective: To describe the association between height, demographics, and treatment in youths with type 1 diabetes participating in an international network for pediatric diabetes centers (SWEET)., Methods: Data were collected from 55 centers with documented patients' height. All subjects below 20 years of age, diabetes duration >1 year, and without celiac disease were included. World Health Organization growth charts were used to calculate height and body mass index z-scores. Multiple hierarchic regression models adjusting for known confounders were applied., Results: Data on 22 941 subjects (51.8% male) were analyzed with a median and interquartile range for age 14.8 years (11.2, 17.6), diabetes duration 5.6 years (3.1, 8.9), and height z-score 0.34 (-0.37, 1.03). Children were taller in the youngest age groups: adjusted height z-scores of 0.31 (±0.06) and 0.39 (±0.06), respectively; with shorter diabetes duration (<2 years: 0.36 [±0.06]; 2-<5 years: 0.34 [±0.06]; ≥5 years: 0.21 [±0.06]) and if they were pump users: 0.35 ± 0.05 vs 0.25 ± 0.05 (>three injections/day and 0.19 ± 0.06 [0-3 injections daily]), respectively. High hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and low to normal weight were associated with a lower height z-score. Trends were identical in all models except for gender. No gender differences were found except in the final height model where females exhibited higher z-score than males., Conclusion: For youths treated at centers offering modern diabetes management, major growth disturbances are virtually eliminated. For children with a young age at onset, high HbA1c, injections, and/or non-intensive diabetes, treatment still requires attention in order to attain normal growth., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Modern insulin regimens for the treatment of type 1 diabetes are highly individualized. The concept of an individually tailored medicine accounts for a broad variety of different insulin regimens applied. Despite clear recommendations for insulin management in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes there is little distinctiveness about concepts and the nomenclature is confusing. Even among experts similar terms are used for different strategies. The aim of our review--based on the experiences of the Hvidoere Study Group (HSG)--is to propose comprehensive definitions for current insulin regimens reflecting current diabetes management in childhood and adolescence. The HSG--founded in 1994--is an international group representing 24 highly experienced pediatric diabetes centers, from Europe, Japan, North America and Australia. Different benchmarking studies of the HSG revealed a broad variety of insulin regimens applied in each center, respectively. Furthermore, the understanding of insulin regimens has been persistently different between the centers since more than 20 yr. Not even the terms 'conventional' and 'intensified therapy' were used consistently among all members. Besides the concepts 'conventional' and 'intensified', several other terms for the characterization of insulin regimens are in use: Basal Bolus Concept (BBC), multiple daily injections (MDI), and flexible insulin therapy (FIT) are most frequently used, although none of these expressions is clearly or consistently defined. The proposed new classification for insulin management will be comprehensive, simple, and catchy. Currently available terms were included. This classification may offer the opportunity to compare therapeutic strategies without the currently existing confusion on the insulin regimen., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Type 1 diabetes is treated with insulin, which has traditionally been delivered by vial and syringe. However, for many patients, dosing inaccuracy, pain, anxiety, inconvenience, and social acceptability present barriers to this method of administration (1-5). This has contributed to the increased popularity of alternative insulin delivery systems, including pen delivery devices (4, 6). Evidence suggests that discreet devices, such as insulin pens, facilitate adherence to intensive insulin therapy regimens, help improve lifestyle flexibility, and reduce injection pain compared with the conventional syringe-based regimens, as shown in studies in adults and adolescents (7). In addition, compared with the vial and syringe method of insulin administration, pens may provide more accurate dosing - which is particularly important in children - thereby improving short-term blood glucose control and potentially improving long-term outcomes (5, 8). Children, in particular, may benefit from insulin pens that are simple to use as adherence issues may be more evident in this patient group (9). Pens for insulin delivery in children with type 1 diabetes have been used for a long time in Europe, and have recently gained in popularity in many other places around the world (4, 10). Furthermore, the conventional vial and syringe method of insulin delivery is beginning to be considered as obsolete (11). Moreover, there is a continued drive to improve insulin pen technology, to refine and enhance the functionality and usability of these pens. However, despite recent advances in pen design and function, the selection of pens available especially for children is limited., (© 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S.)

Objective: To evaluate glycaemic targets set by diabetes teams, their perception by adolescents and parents, and their influence on metabolic control., Methods: Clinical data and questionnaires were completed by adolescents, parents/carers and diabetes teams in 21 international centres. HbA1c was measured centrally., Results: A total of 2062 adolescents completed questionnaires (age 14.4 +/- 2.3 yr; diabetes duration 6.1 +/- 3.5 yr). Mean HbA 1c = 8.2 +/- 1.4% with significant differences between centres (F = 12.3; p < 0.001) range from 7.4 to 9.1%. There was a significant correlation between parent (r = 0.20) and adolescent (r = 0.21) reports of their perceived ideal HbA1c and their actual HbA1c result (p < 0.001), and a stronger association between parents' (r = 0.39) and adolescents' (r = 0.4) reports of the HbA1c they would be happy with and their actual HbA1c result. There were significant differences between centres on parent and adolescent reports of ideal and happy with HbA1c (8.1 < F > 17.4;p < 0.001). A lower target HbA1c and greater consistency between members of teams within centres were associated with lower centre HbA1c (F = 16.0; df = 15; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Clear and consistent setting of glycaemic targets by diabetes teams is strongly associated with HbA1c outcome in adolescents. Target setting appears to play a significant role in explaining the differences in metabolic outcomes between centres.

Aims/hypothesis: The insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus 2 gene (IDDM2) is a type 1 diabetes susceptibility locus contributed to by the variable number of tandem repeats (VNTR) upstream of the insulin gene (INS). We investigated the association between INS VNTR class III alleles (-23HphIA/T) and both insulin antibody presentation and residual beta cell function during the first year after diagnosis in 257 children with type 1 diabetes., Materials and Methods: To estimate C-peptide levels and autoantibody presentation, patients underwent a meal-stimulated C-peptide test 1, 6, and 12 months after diagnosis. The insulin -23HphIA/T variant was used as a marker of class III alleles and genotyped by PCR-RFLP., Results: The insulin antibody titres at 1 and 6 months were significantly lower in the class III/III and class I/III genotype groups than in the class I/I genotype group (p = 0.01). Class III alleles were also associated with residual beta cell function 12 months after diagnosis and independently of age, sex, BMI, insulin antibody titres, and HLA-risk genotype group (p = 0.03). The C-peptide level was twice as high among class III/III genotypes as in class I/I and class I/III genotypes (319 vs 131 and 166 pmol/l, p=0.01). Furthermore, the class III/III genotype had a 1.1% reduction in HbA(1)c after adjustment for insulin dose (p = 0.04)., Conclusions/interpretation: These findings suggest a direct connection in vivo between INS VNTR class III alleles, a decreased humoral immune response to insulin, and preservation of beta cell function in recent-onset type 1 diabetes.

Objective: To document current practices using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) by downloading electronically the 90-d pump data held within the pump memory and relating that to clinical data from children and adolescents in different pediatric diabetes centers from Europe and Israel., Methods: Data of patients (1-18 yr) treated with CSII in 23 centers from nine European countries and Israel were recorded with the encapture software (PEC International, Frankfurt, Germany). The number of patients who participated was 377 (48% female; mean diabetes duration +/- SD: 6.8 +/- 3.7 yr; age: 12.9 +/- 3.8 yr, preschool n = 33; prepubertal n = 95; adolescent n = 249; CSII duration: 1.6 +/- 1.2 yr; local HbA1c: 8.1 +/- 1.2%)., Results: The total insulin dose was lower than previously reported for injection therapy (0.79 +/- 0.20 U/kg/d). Covariance coefficient of daily total insulin was high in all age groups (adolescents 19 +/- 9%, prepubertal 18 +/- 8 and preschool 17 +/- 8). The distribution of basal insulin infusion rates over 24 hr (48 +/- 12% of total dose) varied significantly between centers and age groups. The number of boluses per day (7 +/- 3) was not significantly different between the age groups (average daily bolus amount: 0.42 +/- 0.16 U/kg). The rate of severe hypoglycemia (coma/convulsions) was 12.4 episodes per 100 patient-years and the number of diabetes-related hospital days was 124 per 100 patient-years., Discussion: Pediatric CSII patients show a high variability in their insulin therapy. This relates both to age-dependent differences in the distribution of basal insulin as to the age-independent day-to-day variation in prandial insulin.

To evaluate the immunization pattern against human insulin, 24 newly diagnosed diabetic children (12 females, 12 males; mean age: 7 +/- 4 years) were treated from diagnosis onwards with semisynthetic human insulin (NOVO). Informed consent was obtained from all parents. Blood samples were taken before, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 weeks after the start of therapy and, thereafter, at monthly intervals for 2 years. Insulin (auto) antibodies (I(A)A) were measured by radio binding assay (RBA) and by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). IAA, determined by RBA, were detected in eight children. Using ELISA, IgM IA were not detected after onset of therapy. By contrast, IgG IA were found in 8 children after 2 weeks of treatment and in 12 after 1 month. Using RBA, all children had IA after 2 months of therapy, whereas with ELISA, IA remained undetectable during the study period in 8 out of 24 patients. These results confirm previous observations suggesting that the 2 methods are not interchangeable and yield different estimations of the insulin immune reaction, not only before but also after the start of insulin therapy. In addition, the detection of IA by RBA in all treated patients unambiguously demonstrates that human insulin is immunogenic in man.

Increasing research into the remission phase of type I diabetes mellitus stresses the importance of a non-traumatic and reliable method for the evaluation of endogenous insulin production. We compared 24-h urinary C-peptide excretion (UCE) with plasma C-peptide values before and after stimulation with 1 mg glucagon in 24 type I diabetic children. Fasting plasma C-peptide values and stimulated plasma C-peptide values showed a linear correlation with 24 h UCE. Mean plasma C-peptide levels correlated inversely with the exogenous insulin dose. A slightly better correlation was found between the exogenous insulin dose and 24 h UCE. Control data of 24 h UCE were obtained from healthy siblings. A linear correlation with age was found up to 10 years of age above which UCE values seem to reach a plateau. This effect of age, as well as the frequency of sampling was taken into account in the derivation of 95% reference intervals for UCE. The measurement of 24 h UCE appears to be a useful parameter to assess endogenous insulin production in diabetic children, provided that age is taken into account.

Unlabelled: The magnitude of the disturbance of metabolic control in diabetes mellitus in very young children has been recognised, but seldom studied. Limitations to studies are set by the difficulty of obtaining control data and until recently the lack of alternative therapies. Recently "mini" pumps for continuous subcutaneous insulin delivery have become available and may offer an alternative therapeutic possibility. The present investigation has been undertaken to collect overnight metabolic data of very young diabetic children (less than 6 years) controlled by standard injection therapy. During one admission to hospital frequent blood samples were collected for free insulin, glucose, alanine, lactate, glycerol and 3-hydroxybutyrate determinations. In all children (n = 9) the profiles showed a steep rise in glucose from 04.30 h (6.2 +/- 1.3 mmol/l) to 09.30 h (17.8 +/- 2.4 mmol/l) (the so-called "dawn-phenomenon"). The nature of the changes in the intermediary metabolites suggested that rise in blood glucose was caused by insufficient insulin. We have attempted to explore the time relationship between the overnight drop in free insulin levels and the rises in blood glucose by a distribution-free statistical analysis, correlating successive changes in time between the two profiles. The analysis suggested a delay of 2-6 h between free insulin levels and their effects., In Conclusion: a clear "dawn phenomenon" is seen in very young diabetic children, and contributes to their poor glycaemic control. More stable and higher insulin concentrations in the early morning, obtained perhaps by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, might ameliorate the overall glycaemic control in the very young diabetic child.

The effect of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), begun at diagnosis, on blood glucose control and endogenous insulin production was studied in a group of consecutively referred newly diagnosed diabetic children. In a random order, 15 children started CSII (age 9.5 +/- 4.2 (+/- SD) years) and 15 conventional injection therapy (age 7.0 +/- 3.6 years). For 2 years HbA1 and urinary C-peptide were measured monthly, C-peptide responses to glucagon 6-monthly, and insulin antibodies every 3 months. None of the patients requested change of therapy during the study period, but at 28 months 1 adolescent girl changed to injection therapy from CSII. Severe hypoglycaemia was observed once in each group, but ketoacidosis only once, in the injection therapy group. From 2 months after diagnosis onwards the CSII group had significantly lower HbA1 levels. Urinary and plasma C-peptide levels did not differ between the two groups and similar insulin doses were used throughout the study. At the end of the 2 years of therapy, the CSII group had significantly lower insulin antibody levels. The observations suggest that CSII is well accepted in newly diagnosed children and improves metabolic control, but does not prolong endogenous insulin production.

Aims To assess the importance of family factors in determining metabolic outcomes in adolescents with Type 1 diabetes in 19 countries. Methods Adolescents with Type 1 diabetes aged 11–18 years, from 21 paediatric diabetes care centres, in 19 countries, and their parents were invited to participate. Questionnaires were administered recording demographic data, details of insulin regimens, severe hypoglycaemic events and number of episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis. Adolescents completed the parental involvement scale from the Diabetes Quality of Life for Youth—Short Form (DQOLY-SF) and the Diabetes Family Responsibility Questionnaire (DFRQ). Parents completed the DFRQ and a Parental Burden of Diabetes score. Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was analysed centrally on capillary blood. Results A total of 2062 adolescents completed a questionnaire, with 2036 providing a blood sample; 1994 parents also completed a questionnaire. Family demographic factors that were associated with metabolic outcomes included: parents living together ( t = 4.1; P < 0.001), paternal employment status ( F = 7.2; d.f. = 3; P < 0.001), parents perceived to be over-involved in diabetes care ( r = 0.11; P < 0.001) and adolescent–parent disagreement on responsibility for diabetes care practices ( F = 8.46; d.f. = 2; P < 0.001). Although these factors differed between centres, they did not account for centre differences in metabolic outcomes, but were stronger predictors of metabolic control than age, gender or insulin treatment regimen. Conclusions Family factors, particularly dynamic and communication factors such as parental over-involvement and adolescent–parent concordance on responsibility for diabetes care appear be important determinants of metabolic outcomes in adolescents with diabetes. However, family dynamic factors do not account for the substantial differences in metabolic outcomes between centres. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The magnitude of the disturbance of metabolic control in diabetes mellitus in very young children has been recognised, but seldom studied. Limitations to studies are set by the difficulty of obtaining control data and until recently the lack of alternative therapies. Recently 'mini' pumps for continuous subcutaneous insulin delivery have become available and may offer an alternative therapeutic possibility. The present investigation has been undertaken to collect overnight metabolic data of very young diabetic children (<6 years) controlled by standard injection therapy. During one admission to hospital frequent blood samples were collected for free insulin, glucose, alanine, lactate, glycerol and 3-hydroxybutyrate determinations. In all children ( n=9) the profiles showed a steep rise in glucose from 04.30h (6.2±1.3 mmol/l) to 09.30h (17.8±2.4 mmol/l) (the so-called 'dawn-phenomenon'). The nature of the changes in the intermediary metabolites suggested that rise in blood glucose was caused by insufficient insulin. We have attempted to explore the time relationship between the overnight drop in free insulin levels and the rises in blood glucose by a distribution-free statistical analysis, correlating successive changes in time between the two profiles. The analysis suggested a delay of 2-6 h between free insulin levels and their effects. In conclusion: a clear 'dawn phenomenon' is seen in very young diabetic children, and contributes to their poor glycaemic control. More stable and higher insulin concentrations in the early morning, obtained perhaps by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, might ameliorate the overall glycaemic control in the very young diabetic child. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]