OBJECTIVECurrent guidelines for intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes base the mealtime insulin bolus calculation exclusively on carbohydrate counting. There is strong evidence that free fatty acids impair insulin sensitivity. We hypothesized that patients with type 1 diabetes would require more insulin coverage for higher-fat meals than lower-fat meals with identical carbohydrate content.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSWe used a crossover design comparing two 18-h periods of closed-loop glucose control after high-fat (HF) dinner compared with low-fat (LF) dinner. Each dinner had identical carbohydrate and protein content, but different fat content (60 vs. 10 g).RESULTSSeven patients with type 1 diabetes (age, 55 ± 12 years; A1C 7.2 ± 0.8%) successfully completed the protocol. HF dinner required more insulin than LF dinner (12.6 ± 1.9 units vs. 9.0 ± 1.3 units; P = 0.01) and, despite the additional insulin, caused more hyperglycemia (area under the curve >120 mg/dL = 16,967 ± 2,778 vs. 8,350 ± 1,907 mg/dL⋅min; P < 0001). Carbohydrate-to-insulin ratio for HF dinner was significantly lower (9 ± 2 vs. 13 ± 3 g/unit; P = 0.01). There were marked interindividual differences in the effect of dietary fat on insulin requirements (percent increase significantly correlated with daily insulin requirement; R2 = 0.64; P = 0.03).CONCLUSIONSThis evidence that dietary fat increases glucose levels and insulin requirements highlights the limitations of the current carbohydrate-based approach to bolus dose calculation. These findings point to the need for alternative insulin dosing algorithms for higher-fat meals and suggest that dietary fat intake is an important nutritional consideration for glycemic control in individuals with type 1 diabetes.

ObjectiveThis qualitative study aimed to explore the experience of transition from pediatric to adult diabetes care reported by posttransition emerging adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), with a focus on preparation for the actual transfer in care.MethodsTwenty-six T1D emerging adults (mean age 26.2±2.5 years) receiving adult diabetes care at a single center participated in five focus groups stratified by two levels of current glycemic control. A multidisciplinary team coded transcripts and conducted thematic analysis.ResultsFour key themes on the process of transfer to adult care emerged from a thematic analysis: 1) nonpurposeful transition (patients reported a lack of transition preparation by pediatric providers for the transfer to adult diabetes care); 2) vulnerability in the college years (patients conveyed periods of loss to follow-up during college and described health risks and diabetes management challenges specific to the college years that were inadequately addressed by pediatric or adult providers); 3) unexpected differences between pediatric and adult health care systems (patients were surprised by the different feel of adult diabetes care, especially with regards to an increased focus on diabetes complications); and 4) patients’ wish list for improving the transition process (patients recommended enhanced pediatric transition counseling, implementation of adult clinic orientation programs, and peer support for transitioning patients).ConclusionOur findings identify modifiable deficiencies in the T1D transition process and underscore the importance of a planned transition with enhanced preparation by pediatric clinics as well as developmentally tailored patient orientation in the adult clinic setting.

Aims To identify psychosocial factors associated with the use of continuous glucose monitoring by adults with Type 1 diabetes.Methods Twenty adult patients (aged 45 AE 15 years, diabetes duration 25 AE 19 years, 50% female) followed at our site in the multi-centre Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation continuous glucose monitoring trial were divided into three groups: Glycated haemoglobin (HbA 1c ) Responders who demonstrated an improvement in glycaemic control with continuous glucose monitoring (baseline HbA 1c ‡ 7.0%, HbA 1c reduction greater than or equal to 0.5%), Hypoglycaemia Responders (baseline HbA 1c < 7.0%) who demonstrated decreased time < 3.9 mmol ⁄ l while remaining within target HbA 1c , and HbA 1c NonResponders (baseline HbA 1c ‡ 7.0%, HbA 1c reduction less than 0.5%). Subjects participated in semi-structured interviews focusing on their psychosocial experiences with continuous glucose monitoring.Results Three major themes were identified that differentiated Responders (including both the HbA 1c and Hypoglycaemia groups) from Non-Responders: (i) coping with frustrations-Responders used self-controlled rather than emotions-based coping when faced with continuous glucose monitoring frustrations; (ii) use of information-Responders used retrospective pattern analysis, not just minute-by-minute data analysis, in glycaemic management; (iii) 'significant other' ⁄ spousal involvement-Responders endorsed interest, encouragement and participation by their loved ones. Both Responders and Non-Responders expressed body image concerns when wearing continuous glucose monitoring devices.Conclusions This qualitative study points to the importance of coping skills, retrospective review of data, and 'significant other' involvement in the effective use of continuous glucose monitoring. These findings will inform clinical initiatives to improve patient selection and training in the use of this new technology and have served as the basis for development of quantitative surveys to be used in clinical practice.

Our findings suggest that continuous glucose monitoring may positively impact collaborative diabetes management and marital relationships of patients with Type 1 diabetes and their spouses. However, reluctance to collaborate and lack of understanding may contribute to couples' conflicts around continuous glucose monitoring. Our findings have important implications for clinical care and point to the need for interventions that include spouses in continuous glucose monitoring training to increase their understanding of continuous glucose monitoring, minimize risk for spousal conflict and enhance collaborative diabetes management. Further studies are needed to explore these issues in more detail and depth with larger and more diverse populations.

Findings highlight the importance of enhanced provider awareness of T1D emerging adults' complex feelings about the transition in care. Improved integration of individual- and family-centered approaches to developmentally tailored diabetes care is needed to augment patient and provider relationships.