Background: This study compared infusion set function for up to 1 week using either a Teflon Ò (Dupont Ô , Wilmington, DE) catheter or a steel catheter for insulin pump therapy in type 1 diabetes mellitus. Subjects and Methods: Twenty subjects participating in a randomized, open-labeled, crossover study were asked to wear two Quick-Set Ò and two Sure-T Ò infusion sets (both from Medtronic Minimed, Northridge, CA) until the infusion set failed or was worn for 1 week. All subjects wore a MiniMed continuous glucose monitoring system for the duration of the study. Results: One subject withdrew from the study. There were 38 weeks of Sure-T wear and 39 weeks of Quick-Set wear with no difference in the survival curves of the infusion sets. There was, however, a 15% initial failure rate with the Teflon infusion set. After 7 days, both types of infusion sets had a 64% failure rate. Overall, 30% failed because of hyperglycemia and a failed correction dose, 13% were removed for pain, 10% were pulled out by accident, 10% had erythema and/or induration of > 10 mm, 5% fell out because of loss of adhesion, and 4% were removed for infection. The main predictor of length of wear was the individual subject. There was no increase in hyperglycemia or daily insulin requirements when an infusion set was successfully used for 7 days (n = 25 of 77 weeks). Conclusions: We found no difference between steel and Teflon infusion sets in their function over 7 days, although 15% of Teflon sets failed because of kinking on insertion. The strongest predictor of prolonged 7-day infusion set function was the individual subject, not the type of infusion set.

IntroductionThe majority of people living with type 1 diabetes (PLWT1D) struggle to access high-quality care in low-income countries (LICs), and lack access to technologies, including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), that are considered standard of care in high resource settings. To our knowledge, there are no studies in the literature describing the feasibility or effectiveness of CGM at rural first-level hospitals in LICs.Methods and analysisThis is a 3-month, 2:1 open-randomised trial to assess the feasibility and clinical outcomes of introducing CGM to the entire population of 50 PLWT1D in two hospitals in rural Neno, Malawi. Participants in both arms will receive 2 days of training on diabetes management. One day of training will be the same for both arms, and one will be specific to the diabetes technology. Participants in the intervention arm will receive Dexcom G6 CGM devices with sensors and solar chargers, and patients in the control arm will receive Safe-Accu home glucose metres and logbooks. All patients will have their haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) measured and take WHO Quality of Life assessments at study baseline and endline. We will conduct qualitative interviews with a selection of participants from both arms at the beginning and end of study and will interview providers at the end of the study. Our primary outcomes of interest are fidelity to protocols, appropriateness of technology, HbA1c and severe adverse events.Ethics and disseminationThis study is approved by National Health Sciences Research Committee of Malawi (IRB Number IR800003905) and the Mass General Brigham (IRB number 2019P003554). Findings will be disseminated to PLWT1D through health education sessions. We will disseminate any relevant findings to clinicians and leadership within our study catchment area and networks. We will publish our findings in an open-access peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberPACTR202102832069874.

Background. Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is a widely accepted standard of practice for management of insulin-dependentdiabetes, yet is largely unavailable in rural sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). This prospective cohort study is the first known report ofimplementation of SMBG in a rural, low-income country setting.Objectives. To evaluate adherence and change in clinical outcomes with SMBG implementation at two rural hospitals in Neno, Malawi.Methods. Forty-eight patients with type 1 and insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes were trained to use glucometers and logbooks. Participantsmonitored preprandial glucose daily at rotating times and overnight glucose once a week. Healthcare providers were trained to evaluateglucose trends, and adjusted insulin regimens based on results. Adherence was measured as the frequency with which patients checked anddocumented blood glucose at prescribed times, while clinical changes were measured by change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) over a6-month period.Results. Participants brought their glucometers and logbooks to the clinic 95 - 100% of the time. Adherence with measuring glucose valuesand recording them in logbooks eight times a week was high (mean (standard deviation) 69.4% (15.7) and 69.0% (16.6), respectively). MeanHbA1c decreased from 9.0% (75 mmol/mol) at enrolment to 7.8% (62 mmol/mol) at 6 months (mean difference 1.2% (95% confidenceinterval (CI) 0.6 - 2.0; p=0.0005). The difference was greater for type 1 diabetes (1.6%; 95% CI 0.6 - 2.7; p=0.0031) than for type 2 diabetes(0.9%; 95% CI 0.1 - 1.9; p=0.0630). There was no documented increase in hypoglycaemic events, and no hospitalisations or deaths occurred.Conclusion. SMBG is feasible for patients with insulin-dependent diabetes in a rural SSA population, and may be associated with improvedHbA1c levels. Despite common misconceptions, all patients, regardless of education level, can benefit from SMBG. Further research onlong-term retention of SMBG activities and the benefits of increasing frequency of monitoring is warranted.

ObjectivesWhile the benefits of diabetes camp programs are well established, minority youth are underrepresented in camp attendance. No research to date has explored barriers to camp attendance or potential disparities in those barriers. Further, little is known about sources families prioritize in seeking diabetes information and support.MethodsThis was a prospective survey of families of children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using convenience sampling during normally-scheduled clinic visits. Thirty-nine children and their caregivers completed the survey. Results were analyzed for prevalence and mean number of reported barriers, benefits, and diabetes information networks.ResultsAge range was 5–15 years and mean duration of diabetes was 2.9 years (0.4–9y). The most prevalent barriers were location, cost, and concern about sending children to overnight camp. Caregivers had high level of knowledge of camp benefits. Participants reported engaging with the diabetes community through interactions with their diabetes team, Facebook groups, and the JDRF.ConclusionIncreasing awareness, transportation assistance, and scholarship funding all may increase accessibility of diabetes camps. Diabetes clinic and online or social media groups are both acceptable means of disseminating information about diabetes camp. Further research is indicated to verify if these results are applicable to the larger diabetes community.

No abstract

No abstract

IntroductionAchieving glycaemic targets for people living with diabetes (PLWD) is challenging, especially in settings with limited resources. Programmes need to address gaps in knowledge, skills and self-management. Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) is an evidence-based intervention to educate and empower PLWD to improve self-management activities. This protocol describes a pilot study assessing the feasibility, acceptability and effect on clinical outcomes of implementing DSME in clinics caring for people living with insulin-dependent diabetes in Liberia.Methods and analysisOur protocol is a three-phased, mixed-methods, quasi-experimental prospective cohort study. Phase 1 focuses on (a) establishing a Patient Advisory Board and (b) training providers in DSME who provide care for PLWD. In phase 2, clinicians will implement DSME. In phase 3, we will train additional providers who interact with PLWD.We will assess whether this DSME programme can lead to increased provider knowledge of DSME, improvements in diabetes self-management behaviours, glycaemic control, diabetes knowledge and psychosocial well-being, and a reduction in severe adverse events. Primary outcomes of interest are implementation outcomes and change in frequency of self-management behaviours by patients. Secondary outcomes include change in haemoglobin A1c, psychosocial well-being, severe adverse events and change in provider knowledge of DSME.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the University of Liberia Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Brigham and Women’s Hospital IRB. Findings from the study will be shared with local and national clinical and programmatic stakeholders and published in an open-access, peer-reviewed journal.

No abstract