![]() ; ; et al in Pediatric Diabetes (2015), 16(8), 573-580 BACKGROUND: The month of diagnosis in childhood type 1 diabetes shows seasonal variation. OBJECTIVE: We describe the pattern and investigate if year-to-year irregularities are associated with ... [more ▼] BACKGROUND: The month of diagnosis in childhood type 1 diabetes shows seasonal variation. OBJECTIVE: We describe the pattern and investigate if year-to-year irregularities are associated with meteorological factors using data from 50 000 children diagnosed under the age of 15 yr in 23 population-based European registries during 1989-2008. METHODS: Tests for seasonal variation in monthly counts aggregated over the 20 yr period were performed. Time series regression was used to investigate if sunshine hour and average temperature data were predictive of the 240 monthly diagnosis counts after taking account of seasonality and long term trends. RESULTS: Significant sinusoidal pattern was evident in all but two small centers with peaks in November to February and relative amplitudes ranging from ± 11 to ± 38% (median ± 17%). However, most centers showed significant departures from a sinusoidal pattern. Pooling results over centers, there was significant seasonal variation in each age-group at diagnosis, with least seasonal variation in those under 5 yr. Boys showed greater seasonal variation than girls, particularly those aged 10-14 yr. There were no differences in seasonal pattern between four 5-yr sub-periods. Departures from the sinusoidal trend in monthly diagnoses in the period were significantly associated with deviations from the norm in average temperature (0.8% reduction in diagnoses per 1 °C excess) but not with sunshine hours. CONCLUSIONS: Seasonality was consistently apparent throughout the period in all age-groups and both sexes, but girls and the under 5 s showed less marked variation. Neither sunshine hour nor average temperature data contributed in any substantial way to explaining departures from the sinusoidal pattern. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 131 (2 UL)![]() ; ; et al in Diabetes Care (2012), 35(11), 2215-2225 OBJECTIVE To investigate if there is a reduced risk of type 1 diabetes in children breastfed or exclusively breastfed by performing a pooled analysis with adjustment for recognized confounders. RESEARCH ... [more ▼] OBJECTIVE To investigate if there is a reduced risk of type 1 diabetes in children breastfed or exclusively breastfed by performing a pooled analysis with adjustment for recognized confounders. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Relevant studies were identified from literature searches using MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE. Authors of relevant studies were asked to provide individual participant data or conduct prespecified analyses. Meta-analysis techniques were used to combine odds ratios (ORs) and investigate heterogeneity between studies. RESULTS Data were available from 43 studies including 9,874 patients with type 1 diabetes. Overall, there was a reduction in the risk of diabetes after exclusive breast-feeding for >2 weeks (20 studies; OR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.64–0.88), the association after exclusive breast-feeding for >3 months was weaker (30 studies; OR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.75–1.00), and no association was observed after (nonexclusive) breast-feeding for >2 weeks (28 studies; OR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.81–1.07) or >3 months (29 studies; OR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.78–1.00). These associations were all subject to marked heterogeneity (I2 = 58, 76, 54, and 68%, respectively). In studies with lower risk of bias, the reduced risk after exclusive breast-feeding for >2 weeks remained (12 studies; OR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.75–0.99), and heterogeneity was reduced (I2 = 0%). Adjustments for potential confounders altered these estimates very little. CONCLUSIONS The pooled analysis suggests weak protective associations between exclusive breast-feeding and type 1 diabetes risk. However, these findings are difficult to interpret because of the marked variation in effect and possible biases (particularly recall bias) inherent in the included studies. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 100 (0 UL)![]() ; ; De Beaufort, Carine ![]() in Pediatric Diabetes (2012), 13(SUPPL. 16), 5-14 Background: It is known that the systems of pediatric diabetes care differ across the member states of the European Union (EU). The aim of this project was to characterize some of the main differences ... [more ▼] Background: It is known that the systems of pediatric diabetes care differ across the member states of the European Union (EU). The aim of this project was to characterize some of the main differences among the national systems. Methods: Data were collected using two questionnaires. The first one was distributed among leading centers of pediatric diabetes (one per country) with the aim of establishing an overview of the systems, national policies, quality control (QC) and financing of pediatric diabetes care. Responses were received from all 27 EU countries. The second questionnaire was widely disseminated among all 354 International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes members with a domicile in an EU country; it included questions related to individual pediatric diabetes centers. A total of 108 datasets were collected and processed from healthcare professionals who were treating more than 29000 children and adolescents with diabetes. Data on the reimbursement policies were verified by representatives of the pharmaceutical and medical device companies. Results: The collected data reflect the situation in 2009. There was a notable heterogeneity among the systems for provision of pediatric diabetes care across the EU. Only 20/27 EU countries had a pediatric diabetes register. Nineteen countries had officially recognized centers for pediatric diabetes, but only nine of them had defined criteria for becoming such a center. A system for QC of pediatric diabetes at the national level was reported in 7/26 countries. Reimbursement for treatment varied significantly across the EU, potentially causing inequalities in access to modern technologies. Conclusions: The collected data help develop strategies toward improving equity and access to modern pediatric diabetes care across Europe. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 74 (4 UL)![]() ; ; et al in Diabetologia (2012), 55(8), 2142-2147 Aims/hypothesis The aim of the study was to describe 20- year incidence trends for childhood type 1 diabetes in 23 EURODIAB centres and compare rates of increase in the first (1989–1998) and second ... [more ▼] Aims/hypothesis The aim of the study was to describe 20- year incidence trends for childhood type 1 diabetes in 23 EURODIAB centres and compare rates of increase in the first (1989–1998) and second (1999–2008) halves of the period. Methods All registers operate in geographically defined regions and are based on a clinical diagnosis. Completeness of registration is assessed by capture–recapture methodology. Twenty-three centres in 19 countries registered 49,969 new cases of type 1 diabetes in individuals diagnosed before their 15th birthday during the period studied. Results Ascertainment exceeded 90% in most registers. During the 20-year period, all but one register showed statistically significant changes in incidence, with rates universally increasing. When estimated separately for the first and second halves of the period, the median rates of increase were similar: 3.4% per annum and 3.3% per annum, respectively. However, rates of increase differed significantly between the first half and the second half for nine of the 21 registers with adequate coverage of both periods; five registers showed significantly higher rates of increase in the first half, and four significantly higher rates in the second half. Conclusions/interpretation The incidence rate of childhood type 1 diabetes continues to rise across Europe by an average of approximately 3–4% per annum, but the increase is not necessarily uniform, showing periods of less rapid and more rapid increase in incidence in some registers. This pattern of change suggests that important risk exposures differ over time in different European countries. Further time trend analysis and comparison of the patterns in defined regions is warranted. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 151 (1 UL)![]() ; ; et al in International Journal of Epidemiology (2011), 40(2), 363-374 Background: The incidence rates of childhood onset type 1 diabetes are almost universally increasing across the globe but the aetiology of the disease remains largely unknown. We investigated whether ... [more ▼] Background: The incidence rates of childhood onset type 1 diabetes are almost universally increasing across the globe but the aetiology of the disease remains largely unknown. We investigated whether birth order is associated with the risk of childhood diabetes by performing a pooled analysis of previous studies. Methods: Relevant studies published before January 2010 were identified from MEDLINE, Web of Science and EMBASE. Authors of studies provided individual patient data or conducted pre-specified analyses. Meta-analysis techniques were used to derive combined odds ratios (ORs), before and after adjustment for confounders, and investigate heterogeneity. Results: Data were available for 6 cohort and 25 case-control studies, including 11 955 cases of type 1 diabetes. Overall, there was no evidence of an association prior to adjustment for confounders. After adjustment for maternal age at birth and other confounders, a reduction in the risk of diabetes in second-or later born children became apparent [fully adjusted OR=0.90 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-0.98; P=0.02] but this association varied markedly between studies (I2=67%). An a priori subgroup analysis showed that the association was stronger and more consistent in children <5years of age (n=25 studies, maternal age adjusted OR=0.84 95% CI 0.75, 0.93; I2=23%). Conclusion: Although the association varied between studies, there was some evidence of a lower risk of childhood onset type 1 diabetes with increasing birth order, particularly in children aged <5 years. This finding could reflect increased exposure to infections in early life in later born children. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association © The Author 2010; all rights reserved. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 133 (5 UL)![]() ; ; et al in Diabetologia (2008), 51(5), 726-35 AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to investigate the evidence of an increased risk of childhood-onset type 1 diabetes in children born by Caesarean section by systematically reviewing the ... [more ▼] AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to investigate the evidence of an increased risk of childhood-onset type 1 diabetes in children born by Caesarean section by systematically reviewing the published literature and performing a meta-analysis with adjustment for recognised confounders. METHODS: After MEDLINE, Web of Science and EMBASE searches, crude ORs and 95% CIs for type 1 diabetes in children born by Caesarean section were calculated from the data reported in each study. Authors were contacted to facilitate adjustments for potential confounders, either by supplying raw data or calculating adjusted estimates. Meta-analysis techniques were then used to derive combined ORs and to investigate heterogeneity between studies. RESULTS: Twenty studies were identified. Overall, there was a significant increase in the risk of type 1 diabetes in children born by Caesarean section (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.15-1.32, p < 0.001). There was little evidence of heterogeneity between studies (p = 0.54). Seventeen authors provided raw data or adjusted estimates to facilitate adjustments for potential confounders. In these studies, there was evidence of an increase in diabetes risk with greater birthweight, shorter gestation and greater maternal age. The increased risk of type 1 diabetes after Caesarean section was little altered after adjustment for gestational age, birth weight, maternal age, birth order, breast-feeding and maternal diabetes (adjusted OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.04-1.36, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: This analysis demonstrates a 20% increase in the risk of childhood-onset type 1 diabetes after Caesarean section delivery that cannot be explained by known confounders. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 99 (0 UL) |
||