Effectiveness of Different Insulin Delivery Systems Among Preschool Children with Type 1 Diabetes

Lorena Matonti; Annalisa Deodati; Novella Rapini; Valentina Pampanini; Carlo Mariani; Amodeo Maria Elisa; Stefano Cianfarani; Riccardo Schiaffini

P2-88

Prev Next

Section Contents Cite

ESPE Abstracts (2024) 98 P2-88

ESPE2024 Poster Category 2 Diabetes and Insulin (35 abstracts)

Hypopituitarism following traumatic brain injury in children and adolescents - Long-term outcome study in a prospective patient cohort (2017-2023)

Lorena Matonti ¹ , Annalisa Deodati ^2,3 , Novella Rapini ² , Valentina Pampanini ² , Carlo Mariani ² , Maria Elisa Amodeo ² , Stefano Cianfarani ^2,3,4 & Riccardo Schiaffini ²

Views

Author affiliations

¹Pediatric Emergency Unit, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, Rome, Italy. ²Endocrinology & Diabetology Unit, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, Rome, Italy. ³Department of Systems Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy. ⁴Affiliated Researcher, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Background: Managing glucose control in young children with Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) is challenging due to variable insulin needs, sensitivity, and unpredictable eating and activity behaviours. Despite their effectiveness, the majority of the Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop (AHCL) systems is not approved for children under six in many countries of Europe.

Aim: To assess and compare the effectiveness of Multiple Daily Injection (MDI) plus Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) and AHCL, in preschool children with T1D.

Methods: a retrospective, one-year, observational, real-world study was performed involving 54 children with T1D < 6 yrs of age. CGM data over 14 days was downloaded and entered into GlyCalculator3 software at three months intervals (t3,t6,t9,t12).

Results: Patients (33 M/22 F, mean age at diagnosis 2.4 ± 1.2 yrs, mean age at technology start 3.3 ± 1.4 yrs, mean diabetes duration of 1.7 ± 1.1) were categorized into two groups according to the insulin delivery system used: MDI+CGM (31), and AHCL (11). Time In Range (TIR 3.9-10 mmol/L) significantly improved in the AHCL group compared to MDI at all time points (53,6%±14,9 vs 66,2%±7,4, 54,5%±13,4 vs 66,1%±5,2, 53,9% ±15,0 vs 69,2%± 4,1, 53,9%±15,0 vs 69,3%±4,4; p < 0.05 at T3,6,9,12). Similar results have been obtained for Time Above Range (TAR 10 and 13.5 mmol/L). No significant variations were observed across the groups for the Time Below Range (TBR < 3.1-3.9-10 mmol/L). No severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis episodes occurred in our cohort. The glycemic variability indexes (sensor glucose median and glucose management index) demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in mean change between the MDI and AHCL groups at each observational time points. For the AHCL group, the mean GMI was 7.30 ± 0.58 at time 6 (P = 0.026) and showed a progressively significant reduction during follow-up to 6.92± 0.2% at time 9 (p 0.04) and 6.9 ± 0.7% at time 12 although not statistically significant. No significant difference between SAP versus AHCL systems was observed.

Conclusion: AHCL systems significantly improve glucose control and reduce glucose variability in very young children with T1D, suggesting that this system represents a better adequate strategy compared to MDI and SAP.