ABSTRACT. Objective. To identify possible causes of suboptimal glycemic control (ascertained by hemoglobin A 1c [HbA 1c ] level) in youths using insulin pump therapy.Methods. Forty-eight youths who were receiving insulin pump therapy for >6 months, and who were using insulin pumps and blood glucose meters with data that could be downloaded at our facility, are included in this cross-sectional study. Possible causes of suboptimal glycemic control were evaluated by using 4 information sources: 1) insulin pump data downloads; 2) glucose meter data downloads; 3) patient/family questionnaire about insulin bolusing habits, eating habits, exercise, and blood glucose testing habits; and 4) a physician questionnaire. Physicians completed the questionnaire during the patient interview after reviewing the downloaded information and discussing these results with the patient/family.Results. In a previous report from a general pediatric diabetes clinic, 39% of children changing to insulin pump therapy showed improvement in HbA 1c levels (a decrease Ն0.5%), although 64% either showed improvement (of at least a 1.0% decrease of HbA 1c levels) or maintained a HbA 1c level Ͻ8%. 3 Unfortunately, 20% showed a worsening of their HbA 1c level from a mean of 7.8% to 8.8%. The clinical impression was that missed insulin boluses were a major reason for worsening glycemic control, although insulin pump data downloads were not available to confirm the impression. The purpose of the current study was to identify possible causes of suboptimal glycemic control in youths using insulin pump therapy. METHODSThe first 48 youths seen at our clinic who were using insulin pumps and glucose meters with data that could be downloaded were included in this study. All participants were receiving insulin pump therapy for at least 6 months before inclusion and had attended pump training classes. All had received training on counting carbohydrates for the calculation of mealtime insulin boluses and agreed to perform at least 4 blood glucose tests per day before initiating insulin pump therapy. In addition, all participants were using Medtronic MiniMed (Northridge, CA) insulin pumps, because this was the only type of pump with data that could be downloaded at our facility at the time. A variety of glucose meters were used in this study, all of which had data that could be downloaded at our facility. Before inclusion, participants were required to sign a consent/assent form and complete a questionnaire approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board. Parents of youths Ͻ18 years of age also signed the consent form.A questionnaire was developed to identify possible reasons for suboptimal glycemic control in youths using insulin pumps, including missed mealtime insulin boluses, timing of meal boluses in relation to meals, pump disconnection and bolus for exercise, and number of blood glucose tests performed per day. Participants were asked to answer as accurately and honestly as possible and were told that they would not be criticized for their re...

Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality in type 1 diabetes (T1D) and relates strongly to insulin resistance (IR). Lean and obese T1D adolescents have marked IR. Metformin improves surrogate markers of IR in T1D, but its effect on directly-measured IR and vascular health in T1D youth is unclear. We hypothesized that 1) T1D adolescents have impaired vascular function, and 2) metformin improves this IR and vascular dysfunction. Methods: T1D adolescents and controls underwent MRI of the ascending (AA) and descending aorta (DA) to assess pulse wave velocity (PWV), relative area change (RAC), maximal (WSSMAX) and time-averaged wall shear stress (WSSTA). T1D participants also underwent assessment of carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) by ultrasound, brachial distensibility (BrachD) by DynaPulse, fat and lean mass by DXA, fasting labs following overnight glycemic control, and insulin sensitivity by hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp (glucose infusion rate/insulin, [M/I]). T1D adolescents were randomized 1:1 to 3 months of 2000 mg metformin or placebo daily, after which baseline measures were repeated. Results: Forty-eight T1D adolescents ages 12–21 years (40% BMI ≥ 90th%ile; 56% female) and twenty-four nondiabetic controls of similar age, BMI and sex distribution were enrolled. T1D adolescents demonstrated impaired aortic health vs. controls, including elevated AA and DA PWV, reduced AA and DA RAC and elevated AA and DA WSSMAX and WSSTA. T1D adolescents in the metformin vs. placebo group had improved M/I (12.2±3.2 vs. −2.4±3.6 [mg/kg/min]/uIU/uL, p=0.005; 18.6±4.8 vs. −3.4±5.6 [mg/lean kg/min]/uIU/uL, p=0.005) and reduced weight (−0.5±0.5 vs. 1.6±0.5 kg, p=0.004), BMI (−0.2±0.15 vs. 0.4±0.15 kg/m2, p=0.005) and fat mass (−0.7±0.3 vs. 0.6±0.4 kg, p=0.01). M/I also improved in normal-weight participants (11.8±4.4 vs. −4.5±4.4 [mg/kg/min]/uIU/uL, p=0.02, 17.6±6.7 vs. −7.0±6.7 [mg/lean kg/min]/uIU/uL, p=0.02). The metformin group had reduced AA WSSMAX (−0.3±0.4 vs. 1.5±0.5 dyne/cm2, p=0.03), AA PWV, (−1.1±1.20 vs. 4.1±1.6 m/s, p=0.04) and far-wall diastolic cIMT (−0.04±0.01 vs. −0.00±0.01 mm, p=0.049) vs. placebo. Conclusions: T1D adolescents demonstrate IR and impaired vascular health vs. controls. Metformin improves IR, regardless of baseline BMI, and BMI, weight, fat mass, insulin dose, aortic and carotid health in T1D adolescents. Metformin may hold promise as a cardioprotective intervention in T1D.

CSII therapy is an appropriate option for some children in routine pediatric diabetes care. It can effectively decrease the HbA(1c) and reduce hypoglycemic episodes, without producing an abnormal increase in BMI.

Context For children with growth hormone deficiency (GHD), treatment burden with daily somatropin injections (hGH) is high, which may lead to poor adherence and suboptimal overall treatment outcomes. Lonapegsomatropin (TransCon hGH) is an investigational long-acting, once-weekly prodrug for the treatment of GHD. Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly lonapegsomatropin vs daily somatropin. Design The heiGHt Trial was a randomized, open-label, active-controlled, 52-week phase 3 trial (NCT02781727). Setting This trial took place at 73 sites across 15 countries. Patients This trial enrolled and dosed 161 treatment-naïve, prepubertal patients with GHD. Interventions Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive lonapegsomatropin 0.24 mg hGH/kg/wk or an equivalent weekly dose of somatropin, delivered daily. Main Outcome Measure The primary end point was annualized height velocity (AHV) at Week 52. Secondary efficacy end points included change from baseline in height standard deviation scores (SDS). Results Least squares (LS) mean (SE) AHV at 52 weeks was 11.2 (0.2) cm/year for lonapegsomatropin vs. 10.3 (0.3) cm/year for daily somatropin (P=0.009), with lonapegsomatropin demonstrating both non-inferiority and superiority over daily somatropin. LS mean (SE) height SDS increased from baseline to Week 52 by 1.10 (0.04) vs. 0.96 (0.05) in the weekly lonapegsomatropin vs. daily somatropin groups (P=0.01). Bone age/chronological age ratio, adverse events, tolerability, and immunogenicity were similar between groups. Conclusions The trial met its primary objective of non-inferiority in AHV and further showed superiority of lonapegsomatropin compared to daily somatropin, with similar safety, in treatment-naïve children with GHD.

No abstract

No abstract

At the time of initial diagnosis, uninsured patients were more likely to present with DKA than insured patients. Furthermore, when the uninsured subjects presented with DKA, the condition tended to be more severe and life-threatening. A potential explanation is that uninsured subjects may delay seeking timely medical care, thereby presenting more critically ill, whereas insured subjects may have their T1DM diagnosed earlier.

No abstract