Aims/hypothesis Against a background of a near-universally increasing incidence of childhood type 1 diabetes, recent reports from some countries suggest a slowing in this increase. Occasional reports also describe cyclical variations in incidence, with periodicities of between 4 and 6 years. Methods Age/sex-standardised incidence rates for the 0-to 14-year-old age group are reported for 26 European centres (representing 22 countries) that have registered newly diagnosed individuals in geographically defined regions for up to 25 years during the period 1989-2013. Poisson regression was used to estimate rates of increase and test for cyclical patterns. Joinpoint regression software was used to fit segmented log-linear relationships to incidence trends. Results Significant increases in incidence were noted in all but two small centres, with a maximum rate of increase of 6.6% per annum in a Polish centre. Several centres in high-incidence countries showed reducing rates of increase in more recent years. Despite this, a pooled analysis across all centres revealed a 3.4% (95% CI 2.8%, 3.9%) per annum increase in incidence rate, although there was some suggestion of a reduced rate of increase in the 2004-2008 period. Rates of increase were similar in boys and girls in the 0-to 4-year-old age group (3.7% and 3.7% per annum, respectively) and in the 5-to 9-year-old age group (3.4% and 3.7% per annum, respectively), but were higher in boys than girls in the 10-to 14-year-old age group (3.3% and 2.6% per annum, respectively). Significant 4 year periodicity was detected in four centres, with three centres showing that the most recent peak in fitted rates occurred in 2012. Conclusions/interpretation Despite reductions in the rate of increase in some high-risk countries, the pooled estimate across centres continues to show a 3.4% increase per annum in incidence rate, suggesting a doubling in incidence rate within approximately 20 years in Europe. Although four centres showed support for a cyclical pattern of incidence with a 4 year periodicity, no plausible explanation for this can be given.

Using a trajectory approach, we determined five distinct longitudinal patterns of glycemic control from childhood to early adulthood. Diabetes self-care, treatment differences, and demographics were related to different HbA courses.

Aims/hypothesis The aim of this work was to evaluate geographical variability and trends in the prevalence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), between 2006 and 2016, at the diagnosis of childhood-onset type 1 diabetes in 13 countries over three continents. Methods An international retrospective study on DKA at diagnosis of diabetes was conducted. Data on age, sex, date of diabetes diagnosis, ethnic minority status and presence of DKA at diabetes onset were obtained from Australia,

To investigate temporal trends and contemporary use of insulin pump therapy and glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In a population-based study, we analyzed the use of insulin pump therapy, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) from 1995 to 2017 in patients with type 1 diabetes identified from the Diabetes Prospective Follow-up (DPV) database in Germany and Austria. Patients were stratified by age, sex, migration background, and country. RESULTS Among 96,547 patients with type 1 diabetes (median age 17.9 years, 53% males), the percentage using insulin pump therapy increased from 1% in 1995 to 53% in 2017, with the highest rates in the youngest patients (92% in preschoolers, 74% in children, 56% in adolescents aged <15 years, 46% in adolescents aged ‡15 years, 37% in adults). The percentage of patients using CGM increased from 3% in 2006 to 38% in 2017, with the highest rates in the youngest patients (58%, 52%, 45%, 33%, and 15% of respective age-groups). Daily SMBG frequencies increased from 1995 to 2016 and decreased afterward, most prominently in the youngest patients. Between 2015 and 2017, pump therapy was more frequently used in female versus male adolescents and adults (all P < 0.001), while no sex differences were observed for pump use in children <10 years (all P 5 1.0) and for CGM use in all age-groups (all P 5 1.0). CONCLUSIONS Since 1995, insulin pump use has continuously increased, and insulin pump therapy is now standard in patients aged <15 years. CGM use sharply rose in recent years, particularly in young children.

At similar average levels of HbA, countries display different levels of center variation. The distribution of glycemic achievement within countries should be considered in developing informed policies that drive quality improvement.

We aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in children with type 1 diabetes aged 1-7 years as well as evaluate the role of diluted insulin on glucose control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In an open-label, multicenter, multinational, randomized crossover study, 24 children with type 1 diabetes on insulin pump therapy (median age 5 years [interquartile range 3-6] and mean 6 SD HbA 1c 7.4 6 0.7% [57 6 8 mmol/mol] and total insulin 13.2 6 4.8 units/day) underwent two 21-day periods of unrestricted living and we compared hybrid closed-loop with diluted insulin (U20) and hybrid closedloop with standard strength insulin (U100) in random order. During both interventions, the Cambridge model predictive control algorithm was used. RESULTS The proportion of time that sensor glucose was in the target range between 3.9 and 10 mmol/L (primary end point) was not different between interventions (mean 6 SD 72 6 8% vs. 70 6 7% for closed-loop with diluted insulin vs. closed-loop with standard insulin, respectively; P = 0.16). There was no difference in mean glucose levels (8.0 6 0.8 vs. 8.2 6 0.6 mmol/L; P = 0.14), glucose variability (SD of sensor glucose 3.1 6 0.5 vs. 3.2 6 0.4 mmol/L; P = 0.16), or the proportion of time spent with sensor glucose <3.9 mmol/L (4.5 6 1.7% vs. 4.7 6 1.4%; P = 0.47) or <2.8 mmol/L (0.6 6 0.5% vs. 0.6 6 0.4%; P > 0.99). Total daily insulin delivery did not differ (17.3 6 5.6 vs. 18.9 6 6.9 units/day; P = 0.07). No closed-loop-related severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis occurred. CONCLUSIONS Unrestricted home use of day-and-night closed-loop in very young children with type 1 diabetes is feasible and safe. The use of diluted insulin during closed-loop does not provide additional benefits compared with standard strength insulin. Despite advances in the management of type 1 diabetes and supporting technologies, the majority of children with type 1 diabetes are unable to achieve recommended treatment targets (1,2). Closed-loop systems (3) delivering insulin in glucose-responsive fashion may provide benefits compared with existing treatment modalities including

BACKGROUNDThe possible advantage of hybrid closed-loop therapy (i.e., artificial pancreas) over sensor-augmented pump therapy in very young children with type 1 diabetes is unclear. METHODSIn this multicenter, randomized, crossover trial, we recruited children 1 to 7 years of age with type 1 diabetes who were receiving insulin-pump therapy at seven centers across Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, and the United Kingdom. Participants received treatment in two 16-week periods, in random order, in which the closedloop system was compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy (control). The primary end point was the between-treatment difference in the percentage of time that the sensor glucose measurement was in the target range (70 to 180 mg per deciliter) during each 16-week period. The analysis was conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle. Key secondary end points included the percentage of time spent in a hyperglycemic state (glucose level, >180 mg per deciliter), the glycated hemoglobin level, the mean sensor glucose level, and the percentage of time spent in a hypoglycemic state (glucose level, <70 mg per deciliter). Safety was assessed.

No abstract