838-P: Current Provision and HCP Experiences of Remote Care Delivery and Diabetes Technology Training for People with Type 1 Diabetes in the UK during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Objective: 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. Research Design and Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.

Download Full-text

Comment on Gaudillère et al. Effects of remote care of patients with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes included in an experimental telemonitoring programme [1]

Diabetes & Metabolism ◽

10.1016/j.diabet.2021.101262 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 101262

Author(s):

Sandrine Lablanche ◽

Pauline Suzeau ◽

Antoine Vilotitch ◽

Cathy Domenech ◽

Jean-Luc Bosson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Type 1 Diabetes ◽

Remote Care

Download Full-text

Paediatric rotavirus vaccination, coeliac disease and type 1 diabetes in children: a population-based cohort study

BMC Medicine ◽

10.1186/s12916-021-02017-1 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 19 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Thomas Inns ◽

Kate M. Fleming ◽

Miren Iturriza-Gomara ◽

Daniel Hungerford

Keyword(s):

Type 1 Diabetes ◽

Cohort Study ◽

Coeliac Disease ◽

Practice Research ◽

Clinical Practice Research Datalink ◽

Rotavirus Vaccine ◽

Rotavirus Vaccination ◽

Increased Risk ◽

The Uk

Abstract Background Rotavirus infection has been proposed as a risk factor for coeliac disease (CD) and type 1 diabetes (T1D). The UK introduced infant rotavirus vaccination in 2013. We have previously shown that rotavirus vaccination can have beneficial off-target effects on syndromes, such as hospitalised seizures. We therefore investigated whether rotavirus vaccination prevents CD and T1D in the UK. Methods A cohort study of children born between 2010 and 2015 was conducted using primary care records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Children were followed up from 6 months to 7 years old, with censoring for outcome, death or leaving the practice. CD was defined as diagnosis of CD or the prescription of gluten-free goods. T1D was defined as a T1D diagnosis. The exposure was rotavirus vaccination, defined as one or more doses. Mixed-effects Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Models were adjusted for potential confounders and included random intercepts for general practices. Results There were 880,629 children in the cohort (48.8% female). A total of 343,113 (39.0%) participants received rotavirus vaccine; among those born after the introduction of rotavirus vaccination, 93.4% were vaccinated. Study participants contributed 4,388,355 person-years, with median follow-up 5.66 person-years. There were 1657 CD cases, an incidence of 38.0 cases per 100,000 person-years. Compared with unvaccinated children, the adjusted HR for a CD was 1.05 (95% CI 0.86–1.28) for vaccinated children. Females had a 40% higher hazard than males. T1D was recorded for 733 participants, an incidence of 17.1 cases per 100,000 person-years. In adjusted analysis, rotavirus vaccination was not associated with risk of T1D (HR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.68–1.19). Conclusions Rotavirus vaccination has reduced diarrhoeal disease morbidity and mortality substantial since licencing in 2006. Our finding from this large cohort study did not provide evidence that rotavirus vaccination prevents CD or T1D, nor is it associated with increased risk, delivering further evidence of rotavirus vaccine safety.

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology ◽

10.1177/19322968211029260 ◽

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.

Download Full-text