A Type 1 diabetes technology pathway: consensus statement for the use of technology in Type 1 diabetes

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 531-538 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Choudhary ◽  
F. Campbell ◽  
N. Joule ◽  
P. Kar ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Consensus Statement ◽  
Use Of Technology ◽  
Diabetes Technology ◽  
Technology Pathway

A Decade of Disparities in Diabetes Technology Use and HbA1c in Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes: A Trans-Atlantic Comparison

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ananta Addala ◽  
Marie Auzanneau ◽  
Kellee Miller ◽  
Werner Maier ◽  
Nicole Foster ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Technology Use ◽  
Hemoglobin A1c ◽  
Diabetes Technology ◽  
Design And Methods ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes

<b>Objective:</b> As diabetes technology use in youth increases worldwide, inequalities in access may exacerbate disparities in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). We hypothesized an increasing gap in diabetes technology use by socioeconomic status (SES) would be associated with increased HbA1c disparities. <p> </p> <p><b>Research Design and Methods: </b>Participants aged <18 years with diabetes duration ≥1 year in the Type 1 Diabetes Exchange (T1DX, US, n=16,457) and Diabetes Prospective Follow-up (DPV, Germany, n=39,836) registries were categorized into lowest (Q1) to highest (Q5) SES quintiles. Multiple regression analyses compared the relationship of SES quintiles with diabetes technology use and HbA1c from 2010-2012 and 2016-2018. </p> <p> </p> <p><b>Results: </b>HbA1c was higher in participants with lower SES (in 2010-2012 & 2016-2018, respectively: 8.0% & 7.8% in Q1 and 7.6% & 7.5% in Q5 for DPV; and 9.0% & 9.3% in Q1 and 7.8% & 8.0% in Q5 for T1DX). For DPV, the association between SES and HbA1c did not change between the two time periods, whereas for T1DX, disparities in HbA1c by SES increased significantly (p<0.001). After adjusting for technology use, results for DPV did not change whereas the increase in T1DX was no longer significant.</p> <p> </p> <p><b>Conclusions: </b>Although causal conclusions cannot be drawn, diabetes technology use is lowest and HbA1c is highest in those of the lowest SES quintile in the T1DX and this difference for HbA1c broadened in the last decade. Associations of SES with technology use and HbA1c were weaker in the DPV registry. </p>

Diabetes Technology Experiences Among Latinx and Non-Latinx Youth with Type 1 Diabetes

2021 ◽  
pp. 193229682110292
Author(s):  
David Tsai ◽  
Jaquelin Flores Garcia ◽  
Jennifer L. Fogel ◽  
Choo Phei Wee ◽  
Mark W. Reid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Young People ◽  
Technology Use ◽  
Private Insurance ◽  
Spanish Speaking ◽  
Positive Attitudes ◽  
Diabetes Technology ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Continuous Glucose Monitors

Background: Diabetes technologies, such as insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors (CGM), have been associated with improved glycemic control and increased quality of life for young people with type 1 diabetes (T1D); however, few young people use these devices, especially those from minority ethnic groups. Current literature predominantly focuses on white patients with private insurance and does not report experiences of diverse pediatric patients with limited resources. Methods: To explore potential differences between Latinx and non-Latinx patients, English- and Spanish-speaking young people with T1D ( n = 173, ages 11-25 years) were surveyed to assess attitudes about and barriers to diabetes technologies using the Technology Use Attitudes and Barriers to Device Use questionnaires. Results: Both English- and Spanish-speaking participants who identified as Latinx were more likely to have public insurance ( P = .0001). English-speaking Latinx participants reported higher Hemoglobin A1c values ( P = .003), less CGM use ( P = .002), and more negative attitudes about technology (generally, P = .003; and diabetes-specific, P < .001) than either non-Latinx or Spanish-speaking Latinx participants. Barriers were encountered with equivalent frequency across groups. Conclusions: Latinx English-speaking participants had less positive attitudes toward general and diabetes technology than Latinx Spanish-speaking and non-Latinx English-speaking peers, and differences in CGM use were associated with socioeconomic status. Additional work is needed to design and deliver diabetes interventions that are of interest to and supportive of patients from diverse ethnic and language backgrounds.

scholarly journals Diabetes Technology Use for Management of Type 1 Diabetes Is Associated With Fewer Adverse COVID-19 Outcomes: Findings From the T1D Exchange COVID-19 Surveillance Registry

Diabetes Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. dc210074
Author(s):  
Nudrat Noor ◽  
Osagie Ebekozien ◽  
Laura Levin ◽  
Sheri Stone ◽  
David P. Sparling ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Technology Use ◽  
Diabetes Technology

scholarly journals The role of glycemic self-control in diabetes management: based on the American Diabetes Association guidelines (2021)

2021 ◽  
pp. 286-292
Author(s):  
G. E. Runova
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
American Diabetes Association ◽  
Diabetes Management ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Self Monitoring ◽  
Diabetes Technology

Glycemic control represents an integral part of diabetes mellitus (DM) therapy. It is not surprising that diabetes technology is evolving to not only create new routes of insulin administration, but also to improve the measurement of glycemia. A significant number of new glucose monitoring systems have been launched to the market over the past 10 years. Nevertheless, only 30% of patients with type 1 diabetes and very few patients with type 2 diabetes use continuous or flash glucose monitoring. The reason for this is not only the cost and technical difficulties of continuous glucose monitoring, but also its clinical appropriateness. There is indisputable evidence that patients who receive intensified insulin therapy, especially those with type 1 diabetes, need frequent self-monitoring / continuous glucose monitoring. As for patients with type 2 diabetes receiving basal insulin and / or other antihyperglycemic therapy, the data received seem to be contradictory and uncertain. However, most of the recommendations simmer down to the need for self-monitoring of blood glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes. The diabetes technology section of the American Diabetes Association guidelines 2021 goes into details about the role of self-monitoring of blood glucose in diabetes management, including the need for continuous patient education on the principles and rules of self-monitoring, interpretation and practical use of the results of self-monitoring, various standards of glucometers, factors affecting the accuracy of the results. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document