Cardiometabolic risk: leg fat is protective during childhood.

in Pediatric diabetes (2015)

BACKGROUND: Childhood obesity is associated with early cardiometabolic risk (CMR), increased risk of adulthood obesity, and worse health outcomes. Leg fat mass (LFM) is protective beyond total fat mass ... [more ▼]

BACKGROUND: Childhood obesity is associated with early cardiometabolic risk (CMR), increased risk of adulthood obesity, and worse health outcomes. Leg fat mass (LFM) is protective beyond total fat mass (TFM) in adults. However, the limited evidence in children remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the relationship between LFM and CMR factors in youth. SUBJECTS: A total of 203 overweight/obese children, 7-17-yr-old, followed in the Pediatric Clinic, Luxembourg. METHODS: TFM and LFM by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry and a detailed set of CMR markers were analyzed. RESULTS: After TFM, age, sex, body mass index (BMI) Z-score, sexual maturity status, and physical activity adjustments, negative significant partial correlations were shown between LFM and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA) (variance explained: 6.05% by LFM*; 7.18% by TFM**), fasting insulin (variance explained: 5.71% by LFM*; 6.97% by TFM**), triglycerides (variance explained: 3.96% by LFM*; 2.76% by TFM*), systolic blood pressure (variance explained: 2.68% by LFM*; 4.33% by TFM*), C-reactive protein (variance explained: 2.31% by LFM*; 4.28% by TFM*), and resistin (variance explained: 2.16% by LFM*; 3.57% by TFM*). Significant positive partial correlations were observed between LFM and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (variance explained: 4.16% by LFM*) and adiponectin (variance explained: 3.09% by LFM*) (*p-value < 0.05 and **p-value < 0.001). In order to adjust for multiple testing, Benjamini-Hochberg method was applied and the adjusted significance level was determined for each analysis. LFM remained significant in the aforementioned models predicting HOMA, fasting insulin, triglycerides, and HDL cholesterol (Benjamini and Hochberg corrected p-value < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: LFM is protective against CMR in children, at least in terms of insulin resistance and adverse blood lipid profiles. [less ▲]

Assessment and monitoring of glycemic control in children and adolescents with diabetes

in Pediatric diabetes (2014), 15 Suppl 20

The article presents a chapter of the guidelines on pediatric diabetes in the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2014 Compedium. It ... [more ▼]

The article presents a chapter of the guidelines on pediatric diabetes in the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2014 Compedium. It explores the recommendations for screening and monitoring of glycemic control in diabetic children and adolescents. It compares the grading system used in the ISPAD guidelines with that of the American Diabetes Association. [less ▲]

Diabetes in adolescence

in Pediatric diabetes (2014), 15 Suppl 20

The article presents a part of the guidelines on pediatric diabetes in the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2014 Compedium. It ... [more ▼]

The article presents a part of the guidelines on pediatric diabetes in the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2014 Compedium. It highlights the recommendations for psychoeducation interventions and health care of diabetic adolescents. It features the similar grading system used in the ISPAD guidelines with that of the American Diabetes Association. [less ▲]

Do eating behaviors in the general population account for country variance in glycemic control among adolescents with diabetes: the Hvidoere Study Group and the Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children study.

in Pediatric diabetes (2013), 14(8), 554-561

BACKGROUND: The Hvidoere Study Group (HSG) has demonstrated major differences in glycemic control between pediatric diabetes centers which remain largely unexplained. This study investigates whether these ... [more ▼]

BACKGROUND: The Hvidoere Study Group (HSG) has demonstrated major differences in glycemic control between pediatric diabetes centers which remain largely unexplained. This study investigates whether these differences are partly attributable to healthy eating norms in the background population. METHODS: The study involved adolescents from 18 countries from (i) the Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children study (HBSC) and (ii) the HSG. There were 94 387 participants from representative HBSC samples of 11-, 13- and 15-yr-olds and 1483 11- to 15-yr-old adolescents with diabetes from the HSG. The frequency of intake of fruit, vegetables, sweets, sugary soft drinks, and daily breakfast was compared between the two groups. The glycemic control of the adolescents in the HSG cohort was determined by measuring glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). RESULTS: Across countries in the HSBC survey, there was substantial variation in prevalence of healthy eating behavior and even greater variation between adolescents from the HSG centers. In all countries more adolescents with diabetes reported healthy eating behavior compared to national norms. In individuals healthy eating behavior had a significant effect on the individual level HbA1c. There was no significant correlation between the frequencies of these healthy eating behaviors at (i) the national level and (ii) diabetes center level and the center mean HbA1c. CONCLUSIONS: Although individual healthy eating behavior is associated with better glycemic control at the individual level, such eating behavior does not explain the center differences in HbA1c. Similarly, the reported healthy eating norm of the background populations does not explain the variation in glycemic control among centers. [less ▲]

Technical solution for data collection, data safety and data privacy legislation: experiences from the SWEET study.

in Pediatric diabetes (2012), 13(16), 39-48

BACKGROUND: One of the most important tasks of the SWEET study is benchmarking the data collected. Information on the occurrence of the disease of diabetes, the treatment, and their outcomes in children ... [more ▼]

BACKGROUND: One of the most important tasks of the SWEET study is benchmarking the data collected. Information on the occurrence of the disease of diabetes, the treatment, and their outcomes in children from the different member states of European Union (EU) is crucial. How the collection of data is realized is essential, concerning both the technical issues and the results. The creation of SWEET Centers of Reference (CoR), all over Europe will be facilitated by the access to safe data collection, where legal aspects and privacy are ascertained. OBJECTIVE: To describe the rationale for- and the technical procedure in the data collection implementation, in the SWEET study. SUBJECTS: Selected data on all patients treated at SWEET CoR are collected. METHODS: The SWEET project data collection and management system, consists of modular components for data collection, online data interchange, and a database for statistical analysis. CONCLUSION: The SWEET study and the organization of CoR aims for the goal of offering an updated, secure, and continuous evaluation of diabetes treatment regimens for all children with diabetes in Europe. To support this goal, an appropriate and secure data management system as described in this paper has been created. [less ▲]

Good practice recommendations on paediatric training programmes for health care professionals in the EU.

in Pediatric Diabetes (2012), 13(16), 29-38

Part of the SWEET Project: EU (European Union), Better Control in Paediatric and Adolescent Diabetes: Working to Create Centres of Reference, was specifically to examine the training of health care ... [more ▼]

Part of the SWEET Project: EU (European Union), Better Control in Paediatric and Adolescent Diabetes: Working to Create Centres of Reference, was specifically to examine the training of health care professionals (HCPs) across the EU. Several types of information were collected during 2009, and these included a literature search, workshops of the SWEET members, examination of the data collected by the Hvidøre Study Group and the Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes, and Needs (DAWN) Youth initiative, and a questionnaire distributed to SWEET members and professional colleagues who cared for children and young people (CYP) with diabetes. It was clear from the information collected that there was no European or global consensus either on a curriculum for the training of the paediatric diabetes multidisciplinary team (MDT) or individual professions in paediatric diabetes. A minority of countries had well-established training but, for the majority, there was little standardisation or accreditation. Moreover, most countries did not have available courses for training the diabetes MDT and training was not mandatory. Of the courses that were available more were accredited for doctors and nurses but fewer for the other professions. As a consequence, the majority of HCP posts in paediatric diabetes do not demand prior experience in the specialty. Standardised accredited training and continuous professional development (CPD) opportunities are severely limited. The SWEET Project supports a standardised, accredited approach to training and CPD of the MDT and for individual professions. As a consequence, a curriculum for the training of the MDT was developed, and this is now ready for implementation. [less ▲]

Criteria for Centers of Reference for pediatric diabetes--a European perspective

in Pediatric Diabetes (2012), 13(16), 62-75

' SWEET' is an acronym standing for 'Better control in pediatric and adolescent diabeteS: Working to crEate CEnTers of Reference ( CORs)' and is based on a partnership of established national and European ... [more ▼]

' SWEET' is an acronym standing for 'Better control in pediatric and adolescent diabeteS: Working to crEate CEnTers of Reference ( CORs)' and is based on a partnership of established national and European diabetes organizations such as International Diabetes Federation, Federation of European Nurses in Diabetes, and Primary Care Diabetes Europe (PCDE, www.sweet-project.eu). A three-level classification of centers has been put forward. In addition to centers for local care, SWEET collaborating centers on their way to being a COR have been defined. Peer-audited CORs with a continuous electronic documentation of at least 150 pediatric patients with diabetes treated by a multidisciplinary team based on the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes ( ISPAD) Clinical Practice recommendations have been created in 12 European countries. In 2011, they cared for between 150 to more than 700 youth with diabetes with an average hemoglobin A1c between 7.6 and 9.2%. Although these clinics should not be regarded as representative for the whole country, the acknowledgment as COR includes a common objective of targets and guidelines as well as recognition of expertise in treatment and education at the center. In a first step, the SWEET Online platform allows 12 countries using 11 languages to connect to one unified diabetes database. Aggregate data are de-identified and exported for longitudinal health and economic data analysis. Through their network, the CORs wish to obtain political influence on a national and international level and to facilitate dissemination of new approaches and techniques. The SWEET project hopes to extend from the initial group of centers within countries, throughout Europe, and beyond with the help of the ISPAD network. [less ▲]

Metabolic outcomes in young children with type 1 diabetes differ between treatment centers: the Hvidoere Study in Young Children 2009

in Pediatric Diabetes (2012), 14(6), 422-428

Objective: To investigate whether center differences in glycemic control are present in prepubertal children <11 yr with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Research Design and Methods: This cross-sectional study ... [more ▼]

Objective: To investigate whether center differences in glycemic control are present in prepubertal children <11 yr with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Research Design and Methods: This cross-sectional study involved 18 pediatric centers worldwide. All children, <11 y with a diabetes duration ≥12 months were invited to participate. Case Record Forms included information on clinical characteristics, insulin regimens, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), severe hypoglycemia, language difficulties, and comorbidities. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was measured centrally by liquid chromatography (DCCT aligned, range: 4.4-6.3%; IFFC: 25-45 mmol/mol). Results: A total of 1133 children participated (mean age: 8.0 ± 2.1 y; females: 47.5%, mean diabetes duration: 3.8 ± 2.1 y). HbA1c (overall mean: 8.0 ± 1.0%; range: 7.3-8.9%) and severe hypoglycemia frequency (mean 21.7 events per 100 patient-years), but not DKA, differed significantly between centers (p < 0.001 resp. p = 0.179). Language difficulties showed a negative relationship with HbA1c (8.3 ± 1.2% vs. 8.0 ± 1.0%; p = 0.036). Frequency of blood glucose monitoring demonstrated a significant but weak association with HbA1c (r = -0.17; p < 0.0001). Although significant different HbA1c levels were obtained with diverse insulin regimens (range: 7.3-8.5%; p < 0.001), center differences remained after adjusting for insulin regimen (p < 0.001). Differences between insulin regimens were no longer significant after adjusting for center effect (p = 0.199). Conclusions: Center differences in metabolic outcomes are present in children <11 yr, irrespective of diabetes duration, age, or gender. The incidence of severe hypoglycemia is lower than in adolescents despite achieving better glycemic control. Insulin regimens show a significant relationship with HbA1c but do not explain center differences. Each center's effectiveness in using specific treatment strategies remains the key factor for outcome. [less ▲]

Proinsulin, GLP-1, and glucagon are associated with partial remission in children and adolescents with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes

in Pediatric Diabetes (2012), 13(1), 51-58

Objective: Proinsulin is a marker of beta-cell distress and dysfunction in type 2 diabetes and transplanted islets. Proinsulin levels are elevated in patients newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Our aim ... [more ▼]

Objective: Proinsulin is a marker of beta-cell distress and dysfunction in type 2 diabetes and transplanted islets. Proinsulin levels are elevated in patients newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Our aim was to assess the relationship between proinsulin, insulin dose-adjusted haemoglobin A1c (IDAA1C), glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), glucagon, and remission status the first year after diagnosis of type 1 diabetes. Methods: Juvenile patients (n = 275) were followed 1, 6, and 12 months after diagnosis. At each visit, partial remission was defined as IDAA1C ≤9%. The patients had a liquid meal test at the 1-, 6-, and 12-month visits, which included measurement of C-peptide, proinsulin, GLP-1, glucagon, and insulin antibodies (IA). Results: Patients in remission at 6 and 12 months had significantly higher levels of proinsulin compared to non-remitting patients (p < 0.0001, p = 0.0002). An inverse association between proinsulin and IDAA1C was found at 1 and 6 months (p = 0.0008, p = 0.0022). Proinsulin was positively associated with C-peptide (p < 0.0001) and IA (p = 0.0024, p = 0.0068, p < 0.0001) at 1, 6, and 12 months. Glucagon (p < 0.0001 and p < 0.02) as well as GLP-1 (p = 0.0001 and p = 0.002) were significantly lower in remitters than in non-remitters at 6 and 12 months. Proinsulin associated positively with GLP-1 at 1 month (p = 0.004) and negatively at 6 (p = 0.002) and 12 months (p = 0.0002). Conclusions: In type 1 diabetes, patients in partial remission have higher levels of proinsulin together with lower levels of GLP-1 and glucagon compared to patients not in remission. In new onset type 1 diabetes proinsulin level may be a sign of better residual beta-cell function. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S. [less ▲]

Use of continuous glucose monitoring in children and adolescents

in Pediatric Diabetes (2012), 13(3), 215-228

[No abstract available]