RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The use of most commercially available automated insulin delivery (AID) systems is off-label in pregnancy. However, an increasing number of women with type 1 diabetes (T1D) use such devices throughout pregnancy and delivery. We analysed the data of six women with T1D from a single centre (Diabetology Outpatient Clinic of District-63/Asl Salerno, Italy) who were able to start and maintain AID therapy with the MiniMed™ 780G (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) throughout the pregestational care period, pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data from six patients with T1D who received training and initiation on use of the MiniMed™ 780G and attended follow-up visits throughout pregnancy (these visits were virtual because of the COVID-19 pandemic). All patients maintained their devices in the closed-loop setting throughout pregnancy and during labour and delivery. We analysed data from the pregestational phase to the first 30 days postpartum. RESULTS: All patients achieved the recommended metabolic goals before conception [median time in range (TIR) of 88% for 70-180 mg/dL; median pregnancy-specific TIR 63-140 mg/dL (ps-TIR) of 66% and maintained the ps-TIR until delivery (median ps-TIR 83%). All patients had slightly better metrics during the night than during the day, with a very low time below range of < 63 mg/dL. Optimal glycaemic values were also maintained on the day of labour and delivery (median ps-TIR 92.5%) and in the first 30 days postpartum, with no severe hypoglycaemia. The only neonatal complications were jaundice in one child and an interatrial defect in another child. CONCLUSION: In our well-selected and trained patients, use of the MiniMed™ 780G helped to achieve and maintain ps-metrics from the pregestational period to delivery despite the fact that the algorithm is not set to achieve the ambitious glycaemic values recommended for pregnancy.
RESUMO
Diurnal salivary and plasma cortisol variations are considered valid expression of circadian cortisol rhythmicity. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability of salivary and plasma cortisol and if glycemia and glycemic oscillations may interfere with their concentration. Forty-seven type 2 diabetic patients and 31 controls were studied for glycemic profile and diurnal salivary and plasma cortisol variations on two contemporary samples taken at 08:00 a.m.-11:00 p.m (Late Night, LN). Glucose variability was evaluated in diabetic patients by considering the standard deviation of blood glucose (BGSD) readings, by calculating the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGEs) and continuous overlapping net glycemic action (CONGA). A significant correlation between LN serum cortisol and morning fasting glycemia (r = 0.78; p = 0.004) was observed in T2DM group but not in the control group (r = 0.09; p = 0.74). While LN serum cortisol significantly correlated with CONGA in diabetic patients (r = 0.50; p < 0.001), LN salivary cortisol did not correlate with any indices of glucose variability. Moreover, a highly significant correlation between LN salivary and LN serum cortisol concentrations was found in control group (r = 0.80; p < 0.001) but not in diabetic patients (r = 0.07; p = 0.62). This study shows for the first time that LN salivary rather than plasma cortisol may give information on the dynamics of adrenal function of type 2 diabetic patients, as it is not significantly influenced by glycemic variations. However, our preliminary results need to be confirmed by further studies with more complete evaluations including many more patients.
