Race, socioeconomic status, and treatment center are associated with insulin pump therapy in youth in the first year following diagnosis of type 1 diabetes

Socio-economic disparities in hospital care among Dutch patients with diabetes mellitus

AIM

Socio-economic status (SES) influences diabetes onset, progression and treatment. In this study, the associations between SES and use of hospital care were assessed, focusing on hospitalizations, technology and cardiovascular complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was an observational cohort study comprising 196 695 patients with diabetes (all types and ages) treated in 65 hospitals across the Netherlands from 2019 to 2020 using reimbursement data. Patients were stratified in low, middle, or high SES based on residential areas derived from four-digit zip codes.

RESULTS

Children and adults with low SES were hospitalized more often than patients with middle or high SES (children: 22%, 19% and 15%, respectively; p < .001, adults: 28%, 25% and 23%; p < .001). Patients with low SES used the least technology: no technology in 48% of children with low SES versus 40% with middle SES and 38% with high SES. In children, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) use was higher in high SES {CSII: odds ratio (OR) 1.54 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35-1.76]; p < .001; rtCGM OR 1.39 [95% CI 1.20-1.61]; p < .001} and middle SES [CSII: OR 1.41 (95% CI 1.24-1.62); p < .001; rtCGM: OR 1.27 (95% CI 1.09-1.47); p = .002] compared with low SES. Macrovascular (OR 0.78 (95% CI 0.75-0.80); p < .001) and microvascular complications [OR 0.95 (95% CI 0.93-0.98); p < .001] occurred less in high than in low SES.

CONCLUSIONS

Socio-economic disparities were observed in patients with diabetes treated in Dutch hospitals, where basic health care is covered. Patients with low SES were hospitalized more often, used less technology, and adults with high SES showed fewer cardiovascular complications. These inequities warrant attention to guarantee equal outcomes for all.

Addressing disparities in technology use among patients with type 1 diabetes: a review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The benefits of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and insulin pumps in the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) are widely recognized. However, glaring disparities in access exist, particularly in marginalized and economically disadvantaged groups that stand to benefit significantly from diabetes technology use. We will review recent data describing drivers of these disparities and approaches to address the disparities.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several qualitative studies were published in recent years that have investigated the drivers of disparities reported over the past decades. These studies report that in addition to typical barriers seen in the diabetes technology, marginalized patients have unique challenges that make insulin pumps and CGMs less accessible.

SUMMARY

Barriers to technology use in these groups include stigmatization, lack of support, financial constraints, provider biases, stringent insurance policies, and clinic infrastructure. To address inequities, multifaceted strategies across community, healthcare, and provider sectors are essential. Key initiatives include enhancing public awareness, refining health policies, ensuring access to high-quality care, and emphasizing patient-centered approaches. The equitable use of technology can narrow the gap in T1D outcomes. The social and economic implications of suboptimal T1D management further underscore the urgency of these efforts for both improved health outcomes and cost-efficient care.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Patient Perspectives on the Benefits and Challenges of Diabetes and Digital Technology

Diabetes technology continues to evolve, advancing with our understanding of human biology and improving our ability to treat people with diabetes. Diabetes devices are broadly classified into the following categories: glucose sensors, insulin delivery devices, and digital health care technology (i.e., software and mobile applications). When supported by education and individually tailored, technology can play a key role in optimizing outcomes. Digital devices assist in diabetes management by tracking meals, exercise, sleep, and glycemic measurements in real time, all of which can guide physicians and other clinicians in their decision-making. Here, as people with diabetes and patient advocates, as well as diabetes specialists, primary care providers, and diabetes care and education specialists, we present our perspectives on the advances, benefits, and challenges of diabetes technology in primary care practices.

Demographic Variables Associated With Diabetes Technology Awareness or Use in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes

Background

Studies in populations with type 1 diabetes highlight racial/ethnic disparities in the use of diabetes technology; however, little is known about disparities among those with type 2 diabetes. This project investigates the racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in diabetes technology awareness and use in adults with type 2 diabetes in the ambulatory setting.

Methods

Adults ≥40 years of age with type 2 diabetes in ambulatory care were invited to participate via an e-mail link to a de-identified REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) questionnaire. Variables, including awareness and use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and insulin pumps, were summarized descriptively using frequencies and percentages and were compared across racial/ethnic groups, education level, and income using Pearson χ2 or Fisher exact tests.

Results

The study included 116 participants, most of whom (62%) were White, elderly Medicare recipients. Compared with White participants, those of racially/ethnically minoritized groups were less likely to be aware of CGM (P = 0.013) or insulin pumps (P = 0.001). Participants with a high school education or less were also less likely to be aware of insulin pumps (P = 0.041). Interestingly, neither awareness nor use of CGM or insulin pumps was found to be associated with income.

Conclusion

This cross-sectional analysis suggests that racially/ethnically minoritized groups and individuals with lower education have less awareness of CGM or insulin pumps.

Socioeconomic status and diabetes technology use in youth with type 1 diabetes: a comparison of two funding models

Background

Technology use, including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and insulin pump therapy, is associated with improved outcomes in youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). In 2017 CGM was universally funded for youth with T1D in Australia. In contrast, pump access is primarily accessed through private health insurance, self-funding or philanthropy. The study aim was to investigate the use of diabetes technology across different socioeconomic groups in Australian youth with T1D, in the setting of two contrasting funding models.

Methods

A cross-sectional evaluation of 4957 youth with T1D aged <18 years in the national registry was performed to determine technology use. The Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage (IRSD) derived from Australian census data is an area-based measure of socioeconomic status (SES). Lower quintiles represent greater disadvantage. IRSD based on most recent postcode of residence was used as a marker of SES. A multivariable generalised linear model adjusting for age, diabetes duration, sex, remoteness classification, and location within Australia was used to determine the association between SES and device use.

Results

CGM use was lower in IRSD quintile 1 in comparison to quintiles 2 to 5 (p<0.001) where uptake across the quintiles was similar. A higher percentage of pump use was observed in the least disadvantaged IRSD quintiles. Compared to the most disadvantaged quintile 1, pump use progressively increased by 16% (95% CI: 4% to 31%) in quintile 2, 19% (6% to 33%) in quintile 3, 35% (21% to 50%) in quintile 4 and 51% (36% to 67%) in the least disadvantaged quintile 5.

Conclusion

In this large national dataset, use of diabetes technologies was found to differ across socioeconomic groups. For nationally subsidised CGM, use was similar across socioeconomic groups with the exception of the most disadvantaged quintile, an important finding requiring further investigation into barriers to CGM use within a nationally subsidised model. User pays funding models for pump therapy result in lower use with socioeconomic disadvantage, highlighting inequities in this funding approach. For the full benefits of diabetes technology to be realised, equitable access to pump therapy needs to be a health policy priority.

Racial Disparities in Diabetes Technology Adoption and Their Association with HbA1c and Diabetic Ketoacidosis

Aim

Poorer glycemic control and higher diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) rates are seen in racial/ethnic minorities with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Use of diabetes technologies such as continuous glucose monitors (CGM), continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems has been shown to improve glycemic control and reduce DKA risk. We examined race/ethnicity differences in diabetes technology use and their relationship with HbA1c and DKA.

Methods

Data from patients aged ≥12 years with T1D for ≥1 year, receiving care from a single diabetes center, were examined. Patients were classified as Non-Hispanic White (n=3945), Non-Hispanic Black (Black, n=161), Hispanic (n=719), and Multiracial/Other (n=714). General linear models and logistic regression were used.

Results

Black (OR=0.22, 0.15-0.32) and Hispanic (OR=0.37, 0.30-0.45) patients were less likely to use diabetes technology. This disparity was greater in the pediatric population (p-interaction=0.06). Technology use associated with lower HbA1c in each race/ethnic group. Among technology users, AID use associated with lower HbA1c compared to CGM and/or CSII (HbA1c of 8.4% vs 9.2%, respectively), with the greatest difference observed for Black adult AID users. CSII use associated with a lower odds of DKA in the past year (OR=0.73, 0.54-0.99), a relationship that did not vary by race (p-interaction =0.69); this inverse association with DKA was not observed for CGM or AID.

Conclusion

Disparities in diabetes technology use, DKA, and glycemic control were apparent among Black and Hispanic patients with T1D. Differences in technology use ameliorated but did not fully account for disparities in HbA1c or DKA.

The Insulin-Only Bionic Pancreas Improves Glycemic Control in Non-Hispanic White and Minority Adults and Children With Type 1 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the performance of the iLet bionic pancreas (BP) in non-Hispanic White individuals (here referred to as "Whites") and in Black, Hispanic, and other individuals (here collectively referred to as "Minorities").

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A multicenter, randomized controlled trial evaluated glycemic management with the BP versus standard of care (SC) in 161 adult and 165 pediatric participants with type 1 diabetes over 13 weeks.

RESULTS

In Whites (n = 240), the mean baseline-adjusted difference in 13-week HbA1c between the BP and SC groups was -0.45% (95% CI -0.61 to -0.29 [-4.9 mmol/mol; -6.6 to -3.1]; P < 0.001), while this difference among Minorities (n = 84) was -0.53% (-0.83 to -0.24 [-6.0 mmol/mol; -9.2 to -2.8]; P < 0.001). In Whites, the mean baseline-adjusted difference in time in range between the BP and SC groups was 10% (95% CI 7-12; P < 0.001) and in Minorities was 14% (10-18; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The BP improves glycemic control in both Whites and Minorities and offers promise in decreasing health care disparities.

Differences in positive expectancy of hybrid closed loop (HCL) insulin delivery systems do not explain racial differences in HCL use

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.

Mediating Effects of Technology-Based Therapy on the Relationship Between Socioeconomic Status and Glycemic Management in Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes

Background: Socioeconomic disparities exist related to accessibility and uptake of diabetes technologies that impact glycemic management. The aims of this study were to describe diabetes technology use (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII] and continuous glucose monitoring [CGM]) in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and assess the mediating effects of each technology on the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and glycemic management. Methods: Single-center retrospective cross-sectional study of children aged 0-18 years (n = 813) with T1D and valid postal codes between 2018 and 2020. Extracted data were linked to validated census-based material deprivation (MD) quintiles. Exposures included MD and technology use (CSII, CGM), whereas the primary outcome was glycemic management (HbA1c). Results: Of 813 patients included, 379 (46.6%) and 246 (30.3%) individuals used CGM and CSII, respectively. Real-time CGM (rtCGM) and CSII were associated with both MD and HbA1c, but intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) was not. There was a difference in HbA1c of +1.17% between patients from the most (Q5) and least deprived (Q1) MD quintile (P < 0.0001), and significant mediating effects for rtCGM and CSII use, but not isCGM. rtCGM use and CSII use accounted for 0.14% (P < 0.0001) and 0.25% (P < 0.0001) of the difference in HbA1c between patients from Q1 and Q5 quintiles (indirect effects), representing 12.0% and 23.1% of this difference, respectively. Conclusions: CSII and rtCGM use partially mediated the significant discrepancies observed with SES and glycemic management, highlighting potential benefits of broader access to these technologies to improve diabetes outcomes and help mitigate the negative impact of deprivation on diabetes management.

A Longitudinal View of Disparities in Insulin Pump Use Among Youth with Type 1 Diabetes: The SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study

Objective: To evaluate changes in insulin pump use over two decades in a national U.S. sample. Research Design and Methods: We used data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study to perform a serial cross-sectional analysis to evaluate changes in insulin pump use in participants <20 years old with type 1 diabetes by race/ethnicity and markers of socioeconomic status across four time periods between 2001 and 2019. Multivariable generalized estimating equations were used to assess insulin pump use. Temporal changes by subgroup were assessed through interactions. Results: Insulin pump use increased from 31.7% to 58.8%, but the disparities seen in pump use persisted and were unchanged across subgroups over time. Odds ratio for insulin pump use in Hispanic (0.57, confidence interval [95% CI] 0.45-0.73), Black (0.28, 95% CI 0.22-0.37), and Other race (0.49, 95% CI 0.32-0.76) participants were significantly lower than White participants. Those with ≤high school degree (0.39, 95% CI 0.31-0.47) and some college (0.68, 95% CI 0.58-0.79) had lower use compared to those with ≥bachelor's degree. Those with public insurance (0.84, 95% CI 0.70-1.00) had lower use than those with private insurance. Those with an annual household income <$25K (0.43, 95% CI 0.35-0.53), $25K-$49K (0.52, 95% CI 0.43-0.63), and $50K-$74K (0.79, 95% CI 0.66-0.94) had lower use compared to those with income ≥$75,000. Conclusion: Over the past two decades, there was no improvement in the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic inequities in insulin pump use, despite an overall increase in use. Studies that evaluate barriers or test interventions to improve technology access are needed to address these persistent inequities.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Racial Disparities in Access and Use of Diabetes Technology Among Adult Patients With Type 1 Diabetes in a U.S. Academic Medical Center

OBJECTIVE

Recent studies highlight racial disparities in insulin pump (PUMP) and continuous glucose monitor (CGM) use in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D). This study explored racial disparities in diabetes technology among adult patients with T1D.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a retrospective clinic-based cohort study of adult patients with T1D seen consecutively from April 2013 to January 2020. Race was categorized into non-Black (reference group) and Black. The primary outcomes were baseline and prevalent technology use, rates of diabetes technology discussions (CGMdiscn, PUMPdiscn), and prescribing (CGMrx, PUMPrx). Multivariable logistic regression analysis evaluated the association of technology discussions and prescribing with race, adjusting for social determinants of health and diabetes outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 1,258 adults with T1D, baseline technology use was significantly lower for Black compared with non-Black patients (7.9% vs. 30.3% for CGM; 18.7% vs. 49.6% for PUMP), as was prevalent use (43.6% vs. 72.1% for CGM; 30.7% vs. 64.2% for PUMP). Black patients had adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of 0.51 (95% CI 0.29, 0.90) for CGMdiscn and 0.61 (95% CI 0.41, 0.93) for CGMrx. Black patients had aORs of 0.74 (95% CI 0.44, 1.25) for PUMPdiscn and 0.40 (95% CI, 0.22, 0.70) for PUMPrx. Neighborhood context, insurance, marital and employment status, and number of clinic visits were also associated with the outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant racial disparities were observed in discussions, prescribing, and use of diabetes technology. Further research is needed to identify the causes behind these disparities and develop and evaluate strategies to reduce them.

Relationships Between Socioeconomic Status, Insurance Coverage for Diabetes Technology and Adverse Health in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors (CGM) have many benefits in the management of type 1 diabetes. Unfortunately disparities in technology access occur in groups with increased risk for adverse effects (eg, low socioeconomic status [SES], public insurance).

RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODS

Using 2015 to 2016 data from 4,895 participants from the T1D Exchange Registry, a structural equation model (SEM) was fit to explore the hypothesized direct and indirect relationships between SES, insurance features, access to diabetes technology, and adverse clinical outcomes (diabetic ketoacidosis, hypoglycemia). SEM was estimated using the maximum likelihood method and standardized path coefficients are presented.

RESULTS

Higher SES and more generous insurance coverage were directly associated with CGM use (β = 1.52, SE = 0.12, P < .0001 and β = 1.21, SE = 0.14, P < .0001, respectively). Though SES displayed a small inverse association with pump use (β = -0.11, SE = 0.04, P = .0097), more generous insurance coverage displayed a stronger direct association with pump use (β = 0.88, SE = 0.10, P < .0001). CGM use and pump use were both directly associated with fewer adverse outcomes (β = -0.23, SE = 0.06, P = .0002 and β = -0.15, SE = 0.04, P = .0002, respectively). Both SES and insurance coverage demonstrated significant indirect effects on adverse outcomes that operated through access to diabetes technology (β = -0.33, SE = 0.09, P = .0002 and β = -0.40, SE = 0.09, P < .0001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The association between SES and insurance coverage and adverse outcomes was primarily mediated through diabetes technology use, suggesting that disparities in diabetes outcomes have the potential to be mitigated by addressing the upstream disparities in technology use.

Psychosocial aspects of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in children with type 1 diabetes in Egypt; a limited resources country perspective

BACKGROUND

Novel innovations continue to emerge in type-1 diabetes (T1D) management aiming to improve glycemic control. Assessing the psychosocial outcomes of different treatment modalities is specifically crucial among children with T1D and differs from one population to another.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the health related quality of life (HRQoL) and confidence in diabetes self-management (CIDS) among children with T1D on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) versus multiple daily injections (MDI) and to correlate them with the efficacy of glycemic control, Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview for Children and Adolescents(MINI-KID) depression module and socioeconomic-standard scale.

METHODS

This real life study (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT04756011) included 60 children with T1D (30 on CSII and 30 on MDI), aged 6-18 years. Disease duration, insulin therapy, average self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) and HbA1C were assessed. CIDS, socioeconomic-standard, MINI-KID depression and HRQoL scales were applied.

RESULTS

Children with T1D on CSII have significantly higher HRQoL and CIDS than those on MDI (P < 0.001). A significant negative correlation is found between HRQoL and insulin daily dose(P = 0.022), HbA1C(P < 0.001), average SMBG(P < 0.001) and MINI-KID depression scale(P < 0.001). A significant positive correlation is found between HRQoL and CIDS(P < 0.001) and health care, home sanitation, family possessions and occupation socioeconomic scores(P = 0.033, P = 0.001, P < 0.001 and P = 0.006, respectively). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that HRQoL is most associated with MINI-KID depression scale (P = 0.004) and annual total cost(P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Children with T1D on CSII have significantly better HRQoL, CIDS and HbA1C with less depression than those on MDI.

Comparison of Socioeconomic Disparities in Pump Uptake Among Children With Type 1 Diabetes in 2 Canadian Provinces With Different Payment Models

IMPORTANCE

Insulin pumps improve glycemic control and quality of life in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Canada's provinces have implemented universal pediatric programs to improve access. However, these programs provide differing financial coverage, allowing for unique cross-jurisdictional comparisons.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate possible socioeconomic status (SES) disparities in pump uptake in Québec, where pumps are fully funded, with those in Manitoba, where pumps are partially funded.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Using health administrative databases and a clinical registry, parallel, population-based cohort studies of children with diabetes were conducted from April 1, 2011, in Québec, and April 1, 2012, in Manitoba, until March 31, 2017. In analysis conducted from July 1, 2019, to November 30, 2021, multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were applied to study the association between pump uptake and SES, defined using validated area-based material and social deprivation indices. Children aged 1 to 17 years with T1D were identified using a validated definition in administrative data (Québec) and a clinical registry (Manitoba). Those using pumps before the initiation of provincial programs were excluded.

EXPOSURES

Socioeconomic status.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Insulin pump uptake.

RESULTS

A total of 2919 children with T1D were identified in Québec: 1550 male (53.1%), mean (SD) age at diagnosis, 8.3 (4.4) years, and 1067 (36.6%) were using a pump. In Manitoba, 636 children were identified: 364 male (57.2%), mean (SD) age at diagnosis, 8.8 (4.4) years, and 106 (16.7%) were using a pump. In Québec, the mean age at diagnosis of T1D was lower in children using the pump compared with those not using a pump (7.6 [4.1] vs 8.7 [4.5] years); sex distribution was similar (562 [52.7%] vs 988 [53.3%] male). No differences in mean (SD) age at diagnosis (8.8 [4.4] vs 8.8 [4.3] years) or sex (57 [53.8%] vs 307 [57.9%] male) were noted in both groups in Manitoba. Increasing material deprivation was associated with decreased pump uptake in both Québec (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.93) and Manitoba (aHR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.82). Inclusion of ethnic concentration did not change this association. Socioeconomic disparities in pump uptake were greater in Manitoba than Québec (P = .006 by t test; Cochran Q, 8.15; P = .004; I2 = 87.7%; 95% CI, 52.5%-96.8%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The results of this study suggest that the program of full coverage for pumps available in Québec partially mitigates observed SES disparities in uptake and may be a model to improve access for all children with T1D.

Overcoming Barriers to Diabetes Technology in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes and Public Insurance: Cases and Call to Action

Advancements in diabetes technology such as continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), insulin pumps, and automated insulin delivery provide opportunities to improve glycemic control for youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, diabetes technology use is lower in youth on public insurance, and this technology use gap is widening in the US. There is a significant need to develop effective interventions and policies to promote equitable care. The dual purpose of this case series is as follows: (1) describe success stories of the CGM Time in Range Program (CGM TIPs), which removed barriers for initiating CGM and provided asynchronous remote glucose monitoring for youth on public insurance, and (2) advocate for improving CGM coverage by public insurance. We describe a series of six youths with T1D and public insurance who obtained and sustained use of CGM with assistance from the program. Three youths had improved engagement with the care team while on CGM and the remote monitoring protocol, and three youths were able to leverage sustained CGM wear to obtain insurance coverage for automated insulin delivery systems. CGM TIPs helped these youths achieve lower hemoglobin A1c and improved time in range (TIR). Despite the successes, expansion of CGM TIPs is limited by stringent barriers for CGM approval and difficult postapproval patient workflows to receive shipments. These cases highlight the potential for combining diabetes technology and asynchronous remote monitoring to support continued use and provide education to improve glycemic control for youth with T1D on public insurance and the need to reduce barriers for obtaining CGM coverage by public insurance.

RT‐CGM in conjunction with CSII vs MDI in optimizing glycaemic control in T1DM: Systemic review and meta‐analysis

Introduction

To determine the impact of real‐time continuous glucose monitoring (RT‐CGM) in conjunction with ‘Open loop’‐ continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) as compared to conventional multiple daily injections (MDI) in type 1 diabetes.

Methods

We explored the COCHRANE database, MEDLINE, WEB OF SCIENCE, GOOGLE SCHOLARS, PUBMED, EMBASE, and cited literature in articles retrieved (2010–2021) for all randomized controlled trials and real‐world trials of more than 6 months duration in patients with type 1 diabetes that compared RT‐CGM+CSII vs RT‐ CGM+MDI. A total of 1645 publications have been identified; however, only 3 trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria with a total number of 150 patients (72 patients using RT‐CGM+CSII and 78 patients on RT‐CGM+MDI). A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis were carried out.

Results

No statistically significant reduction in HbA1c was found on comparing RT‐CGM+CSII vs RT‐ CGM + MDI, with p‐value = .75. Likewise, impact on TIR, weight and insulin usage was found to be statistically insignificant with p‐value of 0.15, 0.75 and 0.20 respectively. There was an overall homogeneity between the 3 trials in respect to all previous variables with I² being 0%.

Conclusions

Real‐time continuous glucose monitors in conjunction with MDI open‐loop CSII had a similar impact on HbA1c, weight, insulin usage and TIR. In addition, RT‐CGM when combined with CSII was associated with higher costs and reduced quality of life, hence RT‐ CGM+MDI can be considered as a cheaper, safer yet equivalent substitute.

Review Registration

This study was registered in PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews). Registration Name: RT‐CGM in conjunction with CSII vs MDI in optimizing glycaemic control in T1DM: a systematic review. Registration No: CRD42021255333. Accessible at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021255333. Amendments: Few amendments to the above‐mentioned registration were made: (1) Title (Meta‐analysis was added). (2) Prof. Gleeson was added as an author. (3) Real‐world trials were included. (4) Outcomes required in studies as per our inclusion criteria amended to include at least 1 outcome. (5) Bias risk was assessed by the CASP tool.

Trends in Glycemic Control Among Youth and Young Adults With Diabetes: The SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study

OBJECTIVE

To describe temporal trends and correlates of glycemic control in youth and young adults (YYA) with youth-onset diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The study included 6,369 participants with type 1 or type 2 diabetes from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study. Participant visit data were categorized into time periods of 2002-2007, 2008-2013, and 2014-2019, diabetes durations of 1-4, 5-9, and ≥10 years, and age groups of 1-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, and ≥25 years. Participants contributed one randomly selected data point to each duration and age group per time period. Multivariable regression models were used to test differences in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) over time by diabetes type. Models were adjusted for site, age, sex, race/ethnicity, household income, health insurance status, insulin regimen, and diabetes duration, overall and stratified for each diabetes duration and age group.

RESULTS

Adjusted mean HbA1c for the 2014-2019 cohort of YYA with type 1 diabetes was 8.8 ± 0.04%. YYA with type 1 diabetes in the 10-14-, 15-19-, and 20-24-year-old age groups from the 2014-2019 cohort had worse glycemic control than the 2002-2007 cohort. Race/ethnicity, household income, and treatment regimen predicted differences in glycemic control in participants with type 1 diabetes from the 2014-2019 cohort. Adjusted mean HbA1c was 8.6 ± 0.12% for 2014-2019 YYA with type 2 diabetes. Participants aged ≥25 years with type 2 diabetes had worse glycemic control relative to the 2008-2013 cohort. Only treatment regimen was associated with differences in glycemic control in participants with type 2 diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite advances in diabetes technologies, medications, and dissemination of more aggressive glycemic targets, many current YYA are less likely to achieve desired glycemic control relative to earlier cohorts.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Hispanic Caregivers' experience of pediatric type 1 diabetes: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

It is widely recognized that Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) outcomes are worse among Hispanic children; however, little is published about the perspectives of these patients and their caregivers. Our intent was to characterize the lived experience of Hispanic caregivers of children with T1D, focusing on the role of language and culture and their perspectives on current medical care and alternative care models. We studied Hispanic caregivers of patients (age 2-17 years) with T1D of greater than 6 months' duration.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We completed semi-structured interviews and focus-groups of a purposive sample of 20 members of our population of interest. We developed a codebook and completed multidisciplinary consensus coding, then conducted iterative thematic analysis using qualitative software and discussion to generate themes.

RESULTS

We gathered data from 20 Hispanic caregivers of T1D patients (11.37 ± 3.00 years old, 4.80 ± 2.84 years since diagnosis). 85% of caregivers were female, 80% preferred Spanish, and 15% were college-educated. Our analysis yielded 4 themes across the participants: (1) Culturally-based nutrition challenges, (2) Social isolation and lack of support for T1D care, (3) Hesitancy to fully embrace diabetes technology, and (4) Deferential views of care experience and providers. Overarching all of these themes was support for Hispanic group-based models of care tailored to address these concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

The unique concerns among Hispanic caregivers of children with T1D suggest the importance of culturally tailored interventions to improve care. With successful implementation, such interventions could diminish widening disparities in healthcare outcomes.

Diabetes technologies for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes are highly dependent on coverage and reimbursement: results from a worldwide survey

INTRODUCTION

To study healthcare professionals' (HCP) perceptions on decision making to start insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems in pediatric type 1 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

An electronic survey supported by the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) was disseminated through a weblink structured as follows: (1) HCP's sociodemographic and work profile; (2) perceptions about indications and contraindications for insulin pumps and (3) for CGM systems; and (4) decision making on six case scenarios.

RESULTS

247 responses from 49 countries were analyzed. Seventy per cent of respondents were members of ISPAD. Most of participants were women over 40 years old, who practice as pediatric endocrinologists for more than 10 years at university/academic centers and follow more than 500 people with type 1 diabetes. Although insulin pumps and CGMs are widely available and highly recommended among respondents, their uptake is influenced by access to healthcare coverage/insurance. Personal preference and cost of therapy were identified as the main reasons for turning down diabetes technologies. Parental educational level, language comprehension and income were the most relevant socioeconomic factors that would influence HCPs to recommend diabetes technologies, while gender, religious affiliation and race/ethnicity or citizenship were the least relevant.

CONCLUSIONS

Responders seem to be markedly supportive of starting people on diabetes technologies. However, coverage/insurance for devices holds the biggest impact on the extent of their recommendations.

Racial Disparities in Diabetes Technology Use and Outcomes in Type 1 Diabetes in a Safety-Net Hospital

BACKGROUND

Limited data exist regarding diabetes technology use among adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in urban racially/ethnically diverse safety-net hospitals. We examined racial/ethnic differences in the use of continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in this setting.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 227 patients ≥ 18 years of age with T1D seen in an urban, safety-net endocrinology clinic during 2016-2017 was completed (mean age: 39; 80% English-speaking; 50% had public insurance). Diabetes technology use, defined as either CGM or CSII or both CGM and CSII, and clinical outcomes were examined by race/ethnicity.

RESULTS

Overall, 30% used CGM and 26% used CSII. After adjusting for age, language, insurance, and annual income, diabetes technology use in non-White patients was significantly lower than in White patients, predominantly lower in Black (aOR 0.25 [95% CI 0.11-0.56]) and patients identified as other race/ethnicity (aOR 0.30 [95% CI 0.11-0.77]). At the highest household income level (≥$75,000/y), Black and Hispanic individuals were significantly less likely than White individuals to use diabetes technology (P < .0007). Mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was lower in patients using any diabetes technology compared with patients using no technology (P < .0001). Use of CGM and CSII together was associated with the lowest HbA1c across all racial/ethnic groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Racial/ethnic disparities in diabetes technology use and glycemic control were observed even after adjusting for sociodemographic factors. Further research should explore barriers to accessing diabetes technology in non-White populations.

Self-reported insulin pump prescribing practices in pediatric type 1 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Disadvantaged and minority youth with type 1 diabetes are less likely to be on insulin pump therapy compared to the majority population. Little is known about how pediatric endocrinology providers determine eligibility for insulin pump. We aimed to identify provider factors influencing the decision to initiate insulin pump therapy.

METHODS

We conducted a survey of Pediatric Endocrine Society members who prescribe insulin pump therapy to pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes. The survey collected information about prescriber characteristics, use and adherence to guidelines, eligibility criteria, and objective and subjective factors that influence insulin pump prescription.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 192 individuals who met eligibility criteria (14.1% response rate). The majority of respondents were attending providers, and were white, non-Hispanic females. A minority of providers (22%) reported following written insulin pump guidelines, and many (70%) reported using personal guidelines to guide patient selection. Most providers had no objective eligibility criteria, aside from standard glucose monitoring. Providers identified patient lifestyle and increased risk of hypoglycemia, as well as patient and family factors such as motivation, realistic expectations of insulin pump use, ability to demonstrate carbohydrate counting, patient request, and ability to communicate as important in the decision to initiate insulin pump.

CONCLUSION

Pediatric endocrinology providers place significant importance on subjective factors and utilize few objective criteria in determining eligibility for insulin pump. In the setting of the known disparities in insulin pump use, providers should utilize objective, consistent criteria to determine which patients are safe to initiate insulin pump.

Type 1 Diabetes Management With Technology: Patterns of Utilization and Effects on Glucose Control Using Real-World Evidence

This retrospective cohort study evaluated diabetes device utilization and the effectiveness of these devices for newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes. Investigators examined the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), and multiple daily injection (MDI) insulin regimens and their effects on A1C. The researchers identified 6,250 patients with type 1 diabetes, of whom 32% used CGM and 37.1% used CSII. A higher adoption rate of either CGM or CSII in newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes was noted among White patients and those with private health insurance. CGM users had lower A1C levels than nonusers (P = 0.039), whereas no difference was noted between CSII users and nonusers (P = 0.057). Furthermore, CGM use combined with CSII yielded lower A1C than MDI regimens plus SMBG (P <0.001).

Parents' experiences on the combined use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and real-time continuous glucose monitoring to manage Type 1 diabetes in their children: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies

AIM

To explore the experiences and perspectives of the combined use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on parents of children with TIDM on their daily life.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of English studies published in seven databases between 2006-2021: CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and Scopus. All included studies underwent the process of thematic interpretive integration by the author team.

RESULTS

Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Six derived themes were generated which contained interacting with devices, interacting with glycaemic information, improving quality of life for parents of children with T1DM, burden of living with CSII therapy and CGM, impact on the parent-child relationship, requirement and expectation to advanced diabetes technology. Advanced diabetes technologies affect physical, emotional and relationship between the daily life of parents and their children with T1DM.

Outcomes for continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion users in young adults from lower socioeconomic backgrounds

Objective

Diabetes technology is available and its efficacy and safety have been demonstrated; however, there is little evidence as to how this technology is being utilized and its effectiveness in vulnerable populations. This study evaluated differences in outcomes for young adults in the United States (U.S.) from lower socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds with type 1 diabetes (T1D) managed on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) versus multiple daily injections (MDI) or fixed‐dose insulin (FDI).

Research design, methods and participants

Utilizing the Optum® de‐identified Electronic Health Record data set between 2008 and 2018 to perform a retrospective, cohort study, we identified 805 subjects with T1D aged 18–30 years with Medicaid. We evaluated median difference in HbA1c between CSII and MDI/FDI users for 24 months. Predictors of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA)‐associated hospitalizations by CSII use were evaluated using logistic regression.

Results

CSII users showed statistically significant lower median HbA1c values at 24 months of follow‐up compared to individuals on MDI/FDI. Non‐white individuals were at lower odds of receiving treatment with CSII. Subjects on CSII were not more likely to be hospitalized for DKA compared to subjects treated with MDI/FDI. Older subjects were at lower odds of being hospitalized for DKA. Males and subjects followed by Endocrinologists were at higher odds of being hospitalized for DKA.

Conclusions

Young adults with T1D from lower SES backgrounds show improved glycaemic control when in CSII compared to MDI/FDI without increases in hospitalizations for DKA.

Association of family structure with type 1 diabetes management and outcomes in adolescents: A population-based cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Diabetes therapies have enormously changed during past decades, but only few studies have analyzed the association between family structure and diabetes management and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze cross-sectionally the associations of family structure with type 1 diabetes (T1D) management and various diabetes outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 1635 11- to 17-year-old participants and their parents completed one of three baseline surveys as part of a nationwide, population-based cohort study on early-onset, long-standing T1D. Associations between family structure and outcome variables were analyzed by multivariable linear/logistic regression.

RESULTS

Compared to adolescents living with both parents (reference), HbA_1c was 0.48% (95% confidence interval 0.24; 0.71) / 5.2 (2.6; 7.8) mmol/mol higher in adolescents living with one parent and 0.34% (0.08; 0.59) / 3.7 (0.9; 6.5) mmol/mol higher in those living with one parent and her/his partner. The blood glucose self-monitoring (SMBG) frequency was lower (single parent: -0.6 (-1.1; -0.2), parent and partner:-0.5 (-1.0; 0.0)) and parents reported more long-term consequences related to school or work (OR_{single-parent} 1.52 (0.90; 2.57), OR_{parent + partner} 1.50 (0.86; 2.60)). While living with one parent was associated with increased odds of insulin injection vs. insulin pump therapy (OR 1.61 [1.13; 2.29]), the odds of low hypoglycemia awareness (OR 1.75 [1.00; 3.08]) and diabetes complications (1.32 [0.78; 2.22]) were higher in people living with a parent and her/his partner.

CONCLUSIONS

Living with only one parent with or without a new partner was associated with less SMBG and pump use and poor diabetes outcomes. Future studies to explore the underlying mechanisms are required.

Correlates of analog vs human basal insulin use among individuals with type 2 diabetes: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Given the shift from use of less expensive human to costlier analog insulins for treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D), we examine characteristics and glycemic control associated with type of basal insulin use.

METHODS

We analyzed respondents with T2D in six consecutive National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) cycles (2005-2016). Logistic regression models examined associations between demographics, socioeconomic factors, and NHANES cycle with (1) type of basal insulin use and (2) hemoglobin A1c <8.0% and <7.0% according to basal insulin type.

FINDINGS

Basal insulin use increased from 9.6% to 17.2% of respondents with T2D between 2005 and 2016. Among 723 respondents meeting inclusion criteria, the proportion using analog basal insulin rose from 58% to 88%. African American (aOR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24-0.74) and Hispanic (aOR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30-0.96) respondents had lower odds of analog basal insulin use than non-Hispanic White respondents in adjusted and unadjusted models. Older age and having health insurance, but not type of basal insulin use, associated with meeting HbA1c targets.

INTERPRETATION

Non-White NHANES respondents were less likely to use analog basal insulin than White respondents. Increased analog basal insulin use between 2005 and 2016 was not associated with improved glycemic control.

Social-Ecological Barriers to Access to Healthcare for Adolescents: A Scoping Review

Access to healthcare for adolescents is often overlooked in the United States due to federal and state-sponsored insurance programs such as Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. While these types of programs provide some relief, the issue of healthcare access goes beyond insurance coverage and includes an array of ecological factors that hinder youths from receiving services. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify social-ecological barriers to adolescents' healthcare access and utilization in the United States. We followed the PRISMA and scoping review methodological framework to conduct a comprehensive literature search in eight electronic databases for peer-reviewed articles published between 2010 and 2020. An inductive content analysis was performed to thematize the categories identified in the data extraction based on the Social-Ecological Model (SEM). Fifty studies were identified. Barriers across the five SEM levels emerged as primary themes within the literature, including intrapersonal-limited knowledge of and poor previous experiences with healthcare services, interpersonal-cultural and linguistic barriers, organizational-structural barriers in healthcare systems, community-social stigma, and policy-inadequate insurance coverage. Healthcare access for adolescents is a systems-level problem requiring a multifaceted approach that considers complex and adaptive behaviors.

Effectiveness and equity of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusions in pediatric type 1 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature

AIMS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) and non-randomized studies (NRS) to assess the effectiveness and equity of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusions (CSII) versus multiple-daily injections (MDI) on glycemic outcomes.

METHODS

Searches were conducted between 2000 and 2019 in MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE and HTA. Included studies compared the CSII vs MDI in children and young people (CYP) ≤ 20 years with type 1 diabetes. Two independent reviewers screened the articles, extracted the data, assessed the risk of bias, evaluated the quality of evidence, and identified equity data. Results were pooled with a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Of the 578 articles screened, 16 RCT (545 CYP on CSII) and 70 NRS (73253 on CSII) were included in the meta-analysis. There was moderate-level evidence that the CSII lower HbA_1c in RCT (pooled mean difference [MD]: -0.22%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.33, -0.11%; I²:34%) and insufficient in NRS (pooled MD: -0.45%; 95%CI: -0.52, -0.38%; I²:99%). The pooled incidence rate ratio of severe hypoglycemia on CSII vs MDI in RCT was 0.87 (95%CI: 0.55, 1.37; I²:0%; low-level evidence), and 0.71 (95%CI: 0.63, 0.81; I²:57%, insufficient evidence) in NRS. Health-related quality of life presented insufficient evidence. Equity data were scarcely reported.

CONCLUSIONS

CSII modestly lower HbA_1c when compared with MDI. Current literature does not provide adequate data on other glycemic outcomes. Future assessment on diabetes technology should include individual and area-level socioeconomic data. The study protocol was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018116474).

Type 1 diabetes outcomes of children born in Israel of Eritrean asylum seekers

AIMS

Disparities in health outcomes in pediatric type 1 diabetes (T1D) based on race/ethnicity and socioeconomic position (SEP) have been reported. We compared T1D characteristics between Eritrean status-less children living in Israel and native-born Israeli children.

METHODS

This observational study compared 7 Eritrean and 28 Israeli children (< 8 years old at T1D diagnosis) who were diagnosed in a single diabetes center during 2015-2019. Sociodemographic and diabetes-related data from diagnosis until the last clinic visit were retrieved from their medical files.

RESULTS

At diagnosis, the mean age was 4.8 ± 2.2 years, 17 (48.6%) had diabetic ketoacidosis with a mean HbA1c level of 10.5 ± 2.1% (91.3 mmol/mol) and 29 (82.9%) had ≥ 2 pancreatic autoantibodies. The mean T1D duration of follow-up was 2.7 ± 1.4 years. Overall glycemic control during follow-up (> 6 months from diagnosis, mean number of samples 10.6 ± 5.2) was good, with mean, best, and peak HbA1c levels of 7.4 ± 0.8% (57.4 mmol/mol), 6.7 ± 0.7% (49.7 mmol/mol), and 8.1 ± 1.1% (65 mmol/mol), respectively. Thirty-two children (91.4%) used continuous glucose monitoring devices (CGMs), and the mean time from diagnosis to CGM initiation was 10.8 ± 14.1 months. CGM metrics: time CGM active: 95.4 ± 3.8%, mean glucose level: 170.0 ± 27.0 mg/dl (9.4 mmol/L), time-in-range: 56.4 ± 14.7%, time-below-range: 5.5 ± 5.7%, and time-above-range: 38.6 ± 16.1%. Diabetes-related parameters at diagnosis and during follow-up were similar between groups. Eritrean children had significantly lower SEPs (P < 0.001) and parental education levels (P < 0.001). Correlations between SEP and diabetes parameters and SEP and growth parameters were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Eritrean status-less children in Israel achieved glycemic targets similar to those of Israeli children, perhaps reflecting uniformity in the standard of care and CGM usage.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

The durability and effectiveness of sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy in pediatric and young adult patients with type 1 diabetes

PURPOSE

Despite the prevalent use of insulin pump therapy worldwide, few studies have been conducted among young patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in Korea. We investigated the durability and effectiveness of insulin pump therapy among Korean pediatric and young adult patients with T1D.

METHODS

This study included 54 patients with T1D diagnosed at pediatric ages (range, 1.1-14.1 years) who initiated insulin pump therapy during 2016-2019 at Seoul National University Children's Hospital and Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. Clinical and biochemical data, including anthropometric measurements, insulin dose, and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels were obtained from T1D diagnosis to last follow-up.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients (81.5%) continued insulin pump therapy with a median pump use duration of 2.9 years (range, 0.2-3.5 years); 10 discontinued the therapy within 12 months (<1 month, n=6; 1-6 months, n=1; and 6-12 months, n=3) due to physical interferences or financial problems. Older age (≥10 years of age) and longer diabetes duration (≥2 years) at the initiation of pump therapy were associated with discontinuation (P<0.05 for both). For patients continuing pump therapy, HbA1c levels significantly decreased after 1 year of therapy (from 8.9% to 8.1%, P<0.001) without changes in the body mass index z-scores or insulin dose. Although 4 patients experienced diabetic ketoacidosis, all recovered without complications.

CONCLUSION

Insulin pump therapy was effective in improving glycemic control in T1D patients during 12 months of treatment. Early initiation of insulin pump therapy after T1D diagnosis was helpful for continuing therapy.

Early versus delayed insulin pump therapy in children with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes: results from the multicentre, prospective diabetes follow-up DPV registry

BACKGROUND

Although continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy (ie, insulin pump therapy) is associated with improved metabolic control compared with multiple daily insulin injections in children with type 1 diabetes, it is unclear when it is best to start it after diagnosis. In this study, we aimed to compare the outcomes between early and delayed start of insulin pump therapy in young patients with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

We based the current study on data from the multicentre, prospective diabetes follow-up registry (ie, Diabetes-Patienten-Verlaufsdokumentation [DPV]). The DPV registry comprises 501 diabetes centres from Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Luxembourg. We included patients diagnosed with type 1 diabetes between 2004 and 2014, who were aged between 6 months and 15 years at the time of diagnosis, who had started insulin pump therapy either within the first 6 months (ie, the early treatment group) or in the second to third year (ie, the delayed treatment group) after diabetes diagnosis, and who were treated with insulin pump therapy for at least 1 year. The outcome parameters included the glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) values, the cardiovascular risk profile, and rates of acute complications and diabetes-associated hospital admissions (ie, hospitalisation) during the most recent documented treatment year with insulin pump therapy. Statistical models were adjusted for age at diabetes diagnosis, year of diagnosis, sex, immigrant background, use of continuous glucose monitoring, centre size, and the German Index of Socioeconomic Deprivation 2012 terciles.

FINDINGS

Our study sample comprised 8332 patients from 311 diabetes centres in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Luxembourg. The early treatment group consisted of 4004 (48·1%) of 8332 patients, and the delayed treatment group consisted of 4328 (51·9%). The median diabetes duration during follow-up was 6·7 years (IQR 5·1-8·7 in the early group; 5·0-8·7 in the delayed group) in both groups. Patients with early initiation of insulin pump therapy compared with those with delayed initiation of insulin pump therapy had significantly lower estimated mean HbA_1c values (7·9% [95% CI 7·8-7·9] and 62·6 mmol/mol [95% CI 62·1-63·2] vs 8·0% [8·0-8·1] and 64·1 mmol/mol [63·6-64·6]; p=0·0006), and lower rates of hypoglycaemic coma (incidence risk ratio 0·44 [95% CI 0·24-0·79]; p=0·0064) and hospitalisation (0·86 [95% CI 0·78-0·94]; p=0·0016). A better cardiovascular risk profile was observed in patients with early initiation of insulin pump therapy than in those with delayed initiation: an estimated mean systolic blood pressure of 117·6 mm Hg (95% CI 117·2-117·9) versus 118·5 mm Hg (118·2-118·9), p=0·0007; and HDL cholesterol of 62·8 mg/dL (95% CI 62·2-63·5) versus 60·6 mg/dL (60·0-61·2), p<0·0001; however, diastolic blood pressure; concentrations of LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides; and estimated body-mass index standard deviation scores during follow-up did not differ significantly between both groups.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings provide evidence for improved clinical outcomes associated with the early initiation of insulin pump therapy in children with type 1 diabetes.

FUNDING

The German Center for Diabetes Research (Deutsches Zentrum für Diabetesforschung), German Robert Koch Institute, German Diabetes Association, and Diabetes Agenda 2010.

Insulin Pump Use in Children with Type 1 Diabetes: Over a Decade of Disparities

PURPOSE

Racial disparities have been shown in outcomes and treatment of children with type 1 diabetes (T1D). The purpose of this study was to examine temporal trends in insulin pump use among non-Hispanic white (NHW), non-Hispanic black (NHB) and Hispanic children attending a large urban diabetes center. . This study was a retrospective chart review of insulin pump usage by race (NHW/ NHB) in 2005, and race/ethnicity (NHW/NHB/Hispanic) in 2011-2019. Demographic data (age, sex, diabetes duration, SES) and most recent hemoglobin A1c were also abstracted in 2011-2019.

RESULTS

In 2005, NHW children were twice as likely to use an insulin pump as NHB children. From 2011 to 2019, the odds ratio increased to 2.5 for NHW compared to NHB children. The odds of Hispanic children using insulin pumps were also higher than NHB. Insurance status (government versus private), a surrogate for SES, had very little influence on these trends, with NHW children consistently more likely than NHB children to be treated with insulin pumps in 2011, 2013, 2017, 2019 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We have demonstrated that racial disparities in insulin pump use have persisted over the past 15 years, and are not determined by SES. This inequity in diabetes treatment may be playing a role in the poorer glycemic control and higher rates of diabetes complications in NHB children.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Healthcare providers should be cognizant of racial and ethnic disparities in the treatment of children with T1D. Standardized treatment protocols may reduce unconscious bias in prescribing.

Glycemic control and self-rated health among ethnically diverse adolescents with type 1 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Patient-reported outcomes have received increased attention as treatment outcomes and indicators of wellbeing. A1c has been criticized as lacking patient-centered relevance because individuals are often unaware of their A1c, and studies also often fail to show a benefit of intensive control on quality of life. The goal of the present study was to examine self-rated health (SRH) in relation to diabetes self-care behaviors, socioeconomic factors, treatment regimen characteristics, and glycemic control among predominately Hispanic and African American adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

Adolescents with T1D (N = 84) were recruited for a cross-sectional study evaluating psychosocial factors and identity development. SRH, self-care behaviors, treatment regimen, and demographic variables were collected through self-report while glycemic control (A1c) was determined through chart review.

RESULTS

Participants were predominantly racial and ethnic minorities (48% Hispanic, 27% African American; 52% female, M age 15.9, M diabetes duration 6.8, M A1c 10% [86 mmol/mol]). Significant bivariate relationships emerged between SRH and sex, A1c, self-care behavior, and insulin delivery method. Covariate-adjusted regression models showed only A1c was significantly and independently related to SRH. Mediation analyses illustrated a significant indirect effect for A1c between self-care and SRH.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest glycemic control is associated with self-ratings of health among ethnically diverse adolescents with T1D. SRH appears to be an appropriate patient-reported outcome that is sensitive to glycemic control in this population.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2020

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Has Technology Improved Diabetes Management in Relation to Age, Gender, and Ethnicity?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the current state of diabetes technology adoption and describe impact on outcomes in the context of age, gender, and ethnicity. We will discuss barriers and propose solutions that may help facilitate the adoption.

RECENT FINDINGS

We are witnessing rapid evolution and increase in adoption of diabetes technology in all its forms, including insulin delivery and glucose monitoring devices, mobile medical applications, and telemedicine. This technology has a great potential to improve diabetes-related outcomes, including acute and chronic complications as well as quality of life for people living with diabetes. However, currently available outcome data are showing modest efficacy and evidence for disparities when it comes to age, gender, and ethnicity. Despite multiple barriers, the adoption of technology is steadily increasing. It is clear that disparities exist in terms of access to and use of technology, but they may be at least in part driven by unmet needs of end users and as such are not unsurmountable. While more research is needed to identify the specific causes for the disparities, future development of diabetes technology that is based on adaptation of behavioral theories has a potential to address the gaps. The disparities can be lessened by understanding the needs of end users and with improvement in personalization of technology, allowing the right device to be used by the right patient. Targeted interventions to increase awareness and education and help navigate the processes involved in currently available technology may help diminish the gaps in health equity.

New insulin delivery devices and glycemic outcomes in young patients with type 1 diabetes: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Optimal type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) care requires lifelong appropriate insulin treatment, which can be provided either by multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin or by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). An increasing number of trials and previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMA) have compared both CSII and MDI but have provided limited information on equity and fairness regarding access to, and the effect of, those insulin devices. This study protocol proposes a clear and transparent methodology for conducting a SRMA of the literature (1) to assess the effect of CSII versus MDI on glycemic and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among young patients with T1D and (2) to identify health inequalities in the use of CSII.

METHODS

This protocol was developed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P), the PRISMA-E (PRISMA-Equity 2012 Guidelines), and the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. We will include randomized clinical trials and non-randomized studies published between January 2000 and June 2019 to assess the effectiveness of CSII versus MDI on glycemic and PROs in young patients with T1D. To assess health inequality among those who received CSII, we will use the PROGRESS framework. To gather relevant studies, a search will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database. We will select studies that compared glycemic outcomes (the glycosylated hemoglobin values, severe hypoglycemia episodes, diabetic ketoacidosis events, and/or time spent in range or in hyper-hypoglycemia), and health-related quality of life, as a PRO, between therapies. Screening and selection of studies will be conducted independently by two researchers. Subgroup analyses will be performed according to age group, length of follow-up, and the use of adjunctive technological therapies that might influence glycemic outcomes.

DISCUSSION

Studies of the average effects of CSII versus MDI may have not assessed their impact on health equity, as some intended populations have been excluded. Therefore, this study will address health equity issues when assessing effects of CSII. The results will be published in a peer-review journal. Ethics approval will not be needed.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018116474.

Socioeconomic disparities in access to intensive insulin regimens for adults with type 1 diabetes: a qualitative study of patient and healthcare professional perspectives

Background

Type 1 diabetes is a complex chronic condition which requires lifelong treatment with insulin. Health outcomes are dependent on ability to self-manage the condition. Socioeconomic inequalities have been demonstrated in access to treatment and health outcomes for adults with type 1 diabetes; however, there is a paucity of research exploring how these disparities occur. This study explores the influence of socioeconomic factors in gaining access to intensive insulin regimens for adults with type 1 diabetes.

Methods

We undertook a qualitative descriptive study informed by a phenomenological perspective. In-depth face-to-face interviews were conducted with 28 patients and 6 healthcare professionals involved in their care. The interviews were analysed using a thematic approach. The Candidacy theory for access to healthcare for vulnerable groups framed the analysis.

Results

Access to intensive insulin regimens was through hospital-based specialist services in this sample. Patients from lower socioeconomic groups had difficulty accessing hospital-based services if they were in low paid work and because they lacked the ability to navigate the healthcare system. Once these patients were in the specialist system, access to intensive insulin regimens was limited by non-alignment with healthcare professional goals, poor health literacy, psychosocial problems and poor quality communication. These factors could also affect access to structured diabetes education which itself improved access to intensive insulin regimens. Contact with diabetes specialist nurses and attendance at structured diabetes education courses could ameliorate these barriers.

Conclusions

Access to intensive insulin regimens was hindered for people in lower socioeconomic groups by a complex mix of factors relating to the permeability of specialist services, ability to navigate the healthcare system and patient interactions with healthcare providers. Improving access to diabetes specialist nurses and structured diabetes education for vulnerable patients could lessen socioeconomic disparities in both access to services and health outcomes.

Early Initiation of Diabetes Devices Relates to Improved Glycemic Control in Children with Recent-Onset Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

Objective: To test whether the addition of an insulin pump or continuous glucose monitor (CGM) related to reduced glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in large cohort of children, 5-9 years old, and within 1 year of their type 1 diabetes (T1D) diagnosis. Research Design and Methods: The study uses data from families of children with recent-onset T1D and who were between 5 and 9 years old. Study analyses used children's HbA1c values at baseline and at the 6-month follow-up. Parents reported on family demographics and children's T1D device use in their daily management (e.g., insulin pump or CGM). Children's mean T1D duration was 4.70 ± 3.28 months at baseline, so the 6-month assessment point was ∼12 months postdiagnosis. Results: One hundred-eleven families participated. At baseline, child mean age was 7.51 ± 1.37 years, and mean child HbA1c was 7.65% ± 1.40%. In addition, 17% of children used an insulin pump, and 17.1% of children used CGM. Six months later, 35.1% of children had started an insulin pump and 25.2% had started CGM. Repeated measures analyses of variance results showed a smaller overall HbA1c between baseline and 6 months for children using an insulin pump versus children not on a pump. For CGM, results showed that children starting a CGM during this window had a significantly lower HbA1c level than children who had not started on CGM. Conclusions: The study results suggest that early initiation of either an insulin pump or CGM in children newly diagnosed with T1D may help to improve child HbA1c levels within the first 12 months of diabetes.

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections in children and young people at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes: the SCIPI RCT

BACKGROUND

The risk of developing long-term complications of type 1 diabetes (T1D) is related to glycaemic control and is reduced by the use of intensive insulin treatment regimens: multiple daily injections (MDI) (≥ 4) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). Despite a lack of evidence that the more expensive treatment with CSII is superior to MDI, both treatments are used widely within the NHS.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To compare glycaemic control during treatment with CSII and MDI and (2) to determine safety and cost-effectiveness of the treatment, and quality of life (QoL) of the patients.

DESIGN

A pragmatic, open-label randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot and 12-month follow-up with 1 : 1 web-based block randomisation stratified by age and centre.

SETTING

Fifteen diabetes clinics in hospitals in England and Wales.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 7 months to 15 years.

INTERVENTIONS

Continuous subsutaneous insulin infusion or MDI initiated within 14 days of diagnosis of T1D.

DATA SOURCES

Data were collected at baseline and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months using paper forms and were entered centrally. Data from glucometers and CSII were downloaded. The Health Utilities Index Mark 2 was completed at each visit and the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL, diabetes module) was completed at 6 and 12 months. Costs were estimated from hospital patient administration system data.

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome was glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) concentration at 12 months. The secondary outcomes were (1) HbA_1c concentrations of < 48 mmol/mol, (2) severe hypoglycaemia, (3) diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), (4) T1D- or treatment-related adverse events (AEs), (5) change in body mass index and height standard deviation score, (6) insulin requirements, (7) QoL and (8) partial remission rate. The economic outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

A total of 293 participants, with a median age of 9.8 years (minimum 0.7 years, maximum 16 years), were randomised (CSII, n = 149; MDI, n = 144) between May 2011 and January 2015. Primary outcome data were available for 97% of participants (CSII, n = 143; MDI, n = 142). At 12 months, age-adjusted least mean squares HbA_1c concentrations were comparable between groups: CSII, 60.9 mmol/mol [95% confidence interval (CI) 58.5 to 63.3 mmol/mol]; MDI, 58.5 mmol/mol (95% CI 56.1 to 60.9 mmol/mol); and the difference of CSII - MDI, 2.4 mmol/mol (95% CI -0.4 to 5.3 mmol/mol). For HbA_1c concentrations of < 48 mmol/mol (CSII, 22/143 participants; MDI, 29/142 participants), the relative risk was 0.75 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.25), and for partial remission rates (CSII, 21/86 participants; MDI, 21/64), the relative risk was 0.74 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.24). The incidences of severe hypoglycaemia (CSII, 6/144; MDI, 2/149 participants) and DKA (CSII, 2/144 participants; MDI, 0/149 participants) were low. In total, 68 AEs (14 serious) were reported during CSII treatment and 25 AEs (eight serious) were reported during MDI treatment. Growth outcomes did not differ. The reported insulin use was higher with CSII (mean difference 0.1 unit/kg/day, 95% CI 0.0 to 0.2 unit/kg/day; p = 0.01). QoL was slightly higher for those randomised to CSII. From a NHS perspective, CSII was more expensive than MDI mean total cost (£1863, 95% CI £1620 to £2137) with no additional QALY gains (-0.006 QALYs, 95% CI -0.031 to 0.018 QALYs).

LIMITATIONS

Generalisability beyond 12 months is uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS

No clinical benefit of CSII over MDI was identified. CSII is not a cost-effective treatment in patients representative of the study population.

FUTURE WORK

Longer-term follow-up is required to determine if clinical outcomes diverge after 1 year. A qualitative exploration of patient and professional experiences of MDI and CSII should be considered.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN29255275 and EudraCT 2010-023792-25.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 42. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The cost of insulin pumps and consumables supplied by F. Hoffman-La Roche AG (Basel, Switzerland) for the purpose of the study were subject to a 25% discount on standard NHS costs.

Disparities in Insulin Pump Therapy Persist in Youth With Type 1 Diabetes Despite Rising Overall Pump Use Rates

PURPOSE

This study sought to determine if disparities in insulin pump therapy among youth with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) persist despite recent increases in overall pump use rates.

DESIGN AND METHODS

All patients aged 6 months-17 years, diagnosed with T1DM, and completed 4+ outpatient diabetes visits at an academically-affiliated pediatric health care center from 2011 to 2016 were identified (n = 2131). Data were collected from existing electronic medical records and a multivariable logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with insulin pump therapy.

RESULTS

Findings revealed one novel factor (patients/families whose primary language is Spanish [OR 0.47, p = 0.038] or other non-English languages [OR 0.47, p = 0.028]) and confirmed several previously known factors associated with lower insulin pump use: patients who were older (10-14 years OR 0.38, p < 0.0001; 15+ years OR 0.15, p < 0.0001), male (OR 0.80, p = 0.021), non-Hispanic black (OR 0.59, p = 0.009), American Indian/Alaska Native (OR 0.19, p = 0.023), had either government (OR 0.42, p < 0.0001) or no insurance (OR 0.52, p = 0.004) and poor glycemic control (at least one HbA1c ≥ 8.5%; OR 0.54, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Significant disparities in insulin pump use in youth with T1DM persist despite known benefits associated with pump therapy and underlying causes remain unclear.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Health care providers should explore barriers to insulin pump therapy, including limited English language proficiency.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2019

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Technology in the management of type 1 diabetes mellitus - current status and future prospects

Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) represents 5-10% of diabetes cases worldwide. The incidence of T1DM is increasing, and there is no immediate prospect of a cure. As such, lifelong management is required, the burden of which is being eased by novel treatment modalities, particularly from the field of diabetes technologies. Continuous glucose monitoring has become the standard of care and includes factory-calibrated subcutaneous glucose monitoring and long-term implantable glucose sensing. In addition, considerable progress has been made in technology-enabled glucose-responsive insulin delivery. The first hybrid insulin-only closed-loop system has been commercialized, and other closed-loop systems are under development, including dual-hormone glucose control systems. This Review focuses on well-established diabetes technologies, including glucose sensing, pen-based insulin delivery, data management and data analytics. We also cover insulin pump therapy, threshold-based suspend, predictive low-glucose suspend and single-hormone and dual-hormone closed-loop systems. Clinical practice recommendations for insulin pump therapy and continuous glucose monitoring are presented, and ongoing research and future prospects are highlighted. We conclude that the management of T1DM is improved by diabetes technology for the benefit of the majority of people with T1DM, their caregivers and guardians and health-care professionals treating patients with T1DM.