Management of Hypertension and High Low-Density Lipoprotein in Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate hypertension and hyperlipidemia management patterns in youth with type 1 diabetes and to assess perceived effectiveness of management strategies and barriers to management. STUDY DESIGN: An electronic survey, including clinical scenarios, fielded to pediatric providers (members of the American Diabetes Association Diabetes in Youth Interest Group, Pediatric Endocrine Society, or T1D Exchange). RESULTS: Respondents (N = 207, 86% MDs, 68% female) were practicing clinicians for youth with type 1 diabetes. As an initial recommendation, the overwhelming majority of respondents (83%-99%) endorsed lifestyle and nonmedical recommendations (eg, improve glycemic control) for hypertension and hyperlipidemia. Yet, few (6%-17%) reported these recommendations as effective. Many respondents (57%) reported referring to another specialist for hypertension, whereas few (8%) reported referring to another specialist for hyperlipidemia management. Approximately one-fifth (21%) of respondents never initiate antihypertensive medications, whereas only 8% never initiate lipid-lowering medication. Among prescribers, the majority of respondents only started antihypertensive or lipid-lowering medications after persistent elevations and in the setting of either ineffective lifestyle or nonmedical interventions or additional cardiovascular risk factors. More than two-thirds of respondents endorsed medications as often effective for hypertension and hyperlipidemia (68% and 69%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric diabetes providers commonly defer prescribing antihypertensive and lipid-lowering medications until nonmedication interventions have been ineffective. Most providers describe medications, but not lifestyle interventions, as often effective. Efforts to align clinical practice with clinical guidelines are needed.

Care utilization in a pediatric diabetes clinic: cancellations, parental attendance, and mental health appointments.

OBJECTIVE: To examine care utilization, family attendance, and hemoglobin A1c levels in a multidisciplinary pediatric diabetes clinic. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective electronic record review of deidentified data included patients (99% with type 1 diabetes) with established diabetes care, aged <30 years (mean age, 15 ± 5.2 years), and duration of diabetes >1 year (mean 8.5 ± 5.1 years) at first visit during a 2-year period. Outcomes included care utilization, family attendance, and glycemic control, as indicated by hemoglobin A1c level. Analyses included t tests, ANOVA, χ2 tests, ORs and 95% CIs, and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 1771 patients, with a mean of 5.8 ± 2.8 visits per patient. Roughly 15% of the scheduled appointments resulted in a cancellation or no-show; 61% of patients missed ≥1 visit. Patients with ≥2 missed appointments had higher A1c values and were older than those with <2 missed visits. Almost one-half of visits were attended by mothers alone; fathers attended 22% of visits. Patients whose fathers attended ≥1 visit had lower A1c values than patients whose fathers never attended. Eighteen percent of patients had onsite mental health visits. Patients with ≥1 mental health visit had higher mean A1c values, shorter duration of diabetes, and were younger compared with those with no mental health visits. CONCLUSION: Our observations suggest the need to encourage attendance at diabetes visits and to include fathers to improve A1c values. The high rate of missed visits, especially in patients with poor glycemic control, identifies wasted provider effort when late cancellations/no-shows result in vacant clinic time. It is important to explore reasons for missed visits and to identify approaches to maximizing attendance, such as extended evening/weekend clinic hours and virtual visits.

Health-related quality of life in adolescents with or at risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how adolescents with or at risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and their parent/guardians (parents) perceive adolescents' health-related quality of life. STUDY DESIGN: We interviewed overweight/obese, 12- to 18-year-old youth with T2DM, prediabetes, or insulin resistance and one parent from 5 US sites. Assessments included Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL), Health Utilities Index, family conflict, and diabetes burden. RESULTS: In 108 adolescents, diagnoses included 40.7% with T2DM, 25.0% with prediabetes, and 34.3% with insulin resistance. PedsQL summary score (SS) was higher in adolescents than parents (P=.02). Parents rated physical functioning lower than adolescents (P<.0001), but there were no differences in psychosocial health. Adolescent PedsQL SS did not differ with diagnosis, but was inversely associated with adolescent body mass index z-score (P=.0004) and family conflict (P<.0001) and associated with race/ethnicity (P<.0001). Number of adolescent co-morbidities (P=.007) and burden of diabetes care (P<.05) were inversely associated with parent PedsQL SS. There were no differences in the Health Utilities Index-Mark 3 multi-attribute utility score. CONCLUSIONS: Parents perceive their adolescents' physical functioning as more impaired than adolescents themselves. Contextual factors including severity of obesity, race/ethnicity, family conflict, and burden of diabetes care influence health-related quality of life. Family-based approaches to treatment and prevention of T2DM may benefit from increased attention to the biopsychosocial context.

Impact of type 1 diabetes mellitus on the family is reduced with the medical home, care coordination, and family-centered care.

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the medical home, care coordination, or family-centered care was associated with less impact of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) on families' work, finances, time, and school attendance. STUDY DESIGN: With the 2005 to 2006 National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs, we compared impact in children with T1D (n = 583) with that in children with other special health care needs (n = 39 944) and children without special health care needs (n = 4945). We modeled the associations of the medical home, care coordination, and family-centered care with family impact in T1D. RESULTS: Seventy-five percent of families of children with T1D reported a major impact compared with 45% of families of children with special health care needs (P < .0001) and 17% of families of children without special health care needs (P < .0001). In families of children with T1D, 35% reported restricting work, 38% reported financial impact, 41% reported medical expenses >$1000/year, 24% reported spending ≥11 hours/week caring or coordination care, and 20% reported ≥11 school absences/year. The medical home, care coordination, and family-centered care were associated with less work and financial impact. CONCLUSIONS: In childhood T1D, most families experience major impact. Better systems of health care delivery may help families reduce some of this impact.

Significant vitamin D deficiency in youth with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D was measured in 128 youth with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Less than 25% of the patients were vitamin D sufficient. Because individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus possess multiple risk factors for skeletal fragility, ensuring vitamin D sufficiency throughout childhood and adolescence in this population seems especially warranted.

Temporal trends in the treatment of pediatric type 1 diabetes and impact on acute outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate temporal trends in pediatric type 1 diabetes (T1DM) management and resultant effects on outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Two pediatric T1DM cohorts were followed prospectively for 2 years and compared; Cohort 1 (N = 299) was enrolled in 1997 and Cohort 2 (N = 152) was enrolled in 2002. In both cohorts, eligible participants were identified and sequentially approached at regularly scheduled clinic visits until the target number of participants was reached. Main outcome measures were hemoglobin A1c (A1c), body mass index Z score (Z-BMI), and incidence rate (IR; per 100 patient-years) of hypoglycemia, hospitalizations, and emergency room (ER) visits. RESULTS: At baseline, Cohort 2 monitored blood glucose more frequently than Cohort 1 (> or = 4 times/day: 72% vs 39%, P < .001) and was prescribed more intensive therapy than Cohort 1 (> or = 3 injections/day or pump: 85% vs 65%, P < .001). A1c was lower in Cohort 2 than Cohort 1 at baseline (8.4% vs 8.7%, P = .03) and study's end (8.7% vs 9.0%, P = .04). The cohorts did not differ in Z-BMI (0.83 vs 0.79, P = .57) or IR of hospitalizations (11.2 vs 12.9, P = .38). Cohort 2 had lower IR of total severe hypoglycemic events (29.4 vs 55.4, P < .001) and ER visits (22.0 vs 29.3, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: T1DM management intensified during the 5 years between cohorts and was accompanied by improved A1c and stable Z-BMI. Along with improved control, IR of severe hypoglycemia and ER visits decreased by almost 50% and 25%, respectively.

Impact of ambulatory, family-focused teamwork intervention on glycemic control in youth with type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an ambulatory, family-focused intervention aimed at optimizing STUDY DESIGN: Study design We randomly assigned 105 children and adolescents, 8 to 17 years of age, with T1DM for < or =6 years, to a family-focused teamwork (TW) intervention or to standard multidisciplinary diabetes care (SC). Patients in both study groups were seen at 3- to 4-month intervals and were followed prospectively for 1 year. Measures of family involvement in diabetes tasks, DFC, and quality of life were performed at baseline and after 1 year. Hemoglobin A1c was measured at each visit. RESULTS: Patients (n = 100) completed follow-up, (50 in TW and 50 in SC). At entry, A1c was 8.4% +/- 1.3% in TW and 8.3% +/- 1.0% in SC. After 1 year, A1c was 8.2% +/- 1.1% in TW compared with 8.7% +/- 1.5% in SC (P <.05). Both groups had similar frequencies of blood glucose monitoring (BGM) and insulin dosing. Families exposed to the TW intervention maintained or increased family involvement significantly more than families exposed to SC (P =.05). In multivariate analysis, the TW intervention and the daily frequency of BGM significantly predicted A1c (R (2) = 0.17, P =.05). Despite increased family involvement, the TW group reported no increase in DFC or decrease in quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The ambulatory TW intervention prevented the expected deterioration in glycemic control seen with SC in youths with T1DM of < or =6 years' duration. Successful family involvement may assist in the preservation of health and the prevention of long-term diabetes complications for youth with diabetes.