Problemi speciali
Diabete hi-tech
High-tech care in pAediatric diabetes
Martina D’agostin1, Cristina Tumminelli1, Veronica Grigoletto1, Gianluca Tornese2, Egidio Barbi1,2, Elena Faleschini2
1Scuola di Specializzazione in Pediatria, Universitŕ di Trieste
2SS di Endocrinologia, Diabetologia e altre Malattie del Metabolismo, IRCCS Materno-Infantile “Burlo Garofolo”, Trieste
Ottobre 2022 - pagg. 505 -510 | DOI: 10.53126/MEB41505
Abstract
Recently, technological innovations have radically changed diabetes care. Insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring systems have significantly improved diabetes outcomes in both children and adults with Type 1 diabetes. For this reason, the major international associations recommend the use of technology in the management of Type 1 diabetes. The limitations of glycemic self-monitoring have prompted research to develop alternative techniques, favouring the expansion of continuous blood glucose monitoring systems (CGMs). CGM measures interstitial glucose through tiny sensors inserted in the subcutaneous tissue. Sensors can provide information in real time on the current glucose level and its trend. These data can be uploaded to the cloud and checked any time by doctors, patients and their caregivers. CGM can be combined with multiple daily injections (MDI) therapy or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). With CSII, basal insulin is supplied in the form of a continuous infusion and pre-meal bolus doses are calculated based on the meals’ carbohydrate content. A variety of insulin pumps is available, some of which can communicate with specific CGM devices, helping the patient to make better decisions about insulin dosing. This approach is known as sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy and it is the gold standard for the treatment of Type 1 diabetes in children and young adults, as recommended by the Italian Association of Paediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology. In the most recent systems, basal insulin delivery can be automatically modified through algorithms, based on CGM results, target glucose and the amount of active insulin, even though the patients still have to set the pre-meal insulin bolus manually. This system is defined as a partially hybrid closed-loop system, also known as artificial pancreas. Compared to MDI, CSII is associated with better control of blood glucose - measured by haemoglobin A1c and glycemic variability -, reduction of daily insulin requirement and an improvement of the quality of life. Psychophysical disabilities, language barriers or socio-economic disadvantage should not be considered limitations of CSII treatment as long as the caregiver is able to manage the therapy. Nowadays, MDI is recommended as first line therapy exclusively for those patients who do not want to use insulin pumps due to physical discomfort. The aim of this article is to provide updated information on the management of paediatric diabetes with modern technological devices for glucose monitoring and insulin delivery.
Riassunto
L’utilizzo della tecnologia per la gestione del diabete tipo 1 in ambito pediatrico migliora il controllo glicemico e la qualitŕ della vita dei bambini e delle loro famiglie. Il sensore glicemico in etŕ pediatrica permette un monitoraggio in remoto utile per il medico e per i genitori, che possono tenere sotto controllo i valori glicemici dei figli quando sono impegnati in altre attivitŕ.Rispetto alla classica terapia multi-iniettiva, il microinfusore si č dimostrato efficace nel ridurre gli episodi di ipoglicemia, i livelli di emoglobina glicata e il fabbisogno giornaliero di insulina. L’associazione tra il monitoraggio continuo del glucosio e il microinfusore risulta il gold standard per il trattamento del diabete mellito tipo 1 nei bambini e negli adolescenti. La Societŕ Italiana di Endocrinologia e Diabetologia Pediatrica (SIEDP) raccomanda il suo utilizzo in tutti i bambini con etŕ superiore ai due anni.
Classificazione MeSH
Contenuto riservato
Per leggere l'articolo completo è necessario effettuare il login.
Non sei ancora registrato? Registrati
Bibliografia
1. Bruttomesso D, Laviola L, Lepore G, et al. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in Italy: third national survey. Diabetes Technol Ther 2015;17(2):96-104. doi: 10.1089/dia. 2014.0242.
2. Patterson CC, Karuranga S, Salpea P, et al. Worldwide estimates of incidence, prevalence and mortality of type 1 diabetes in children and adolescents: Results from the International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas, 9th edition. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2019;157:107842. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2019. 107842.
3. Rodbard D. Continuous Glucose Monitoring: A Review of Recent Studies Demonstrating Improved Glycemic Outcomes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2017;19(S3):S25-S37. doi: 10. 1089/dia.2017.0035.
4. Mancini G, Berioli MG, Santi E, et al. Flash glucose monitoring: a review of the literature with a special Focus on type 1 diabetes. Nutrients 2018;10(8):992. doi: 10.3390/ nu10080992.
5. Gruppo di Studio di Diabetologia Pediatrica SIEDP 2017-2019. Raccomandazioni sull’utilizzo della tecnologia in diabetologia pediatrica 2019. Acta Biomed 2019;90(1).
6. Rabbone I, Barbetti F, Marigliano M, et al. Successful treatment of young infants presenting neonatal diabetes mellitus with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion before genetic diagnosis. Acta Diabetol 2016;53(4): 559-65. doi: 10.1007/s00592-015-0828-7.
7. Suprani T, Graziani V, Cirillo A, Biasini A, Marchetti F. La gestione del bambino con diabete di tipo 1. Medico e Bambino 2014;33 (2):87-95.
8. Marchand L, Kawasaki-Ogita Y, Place J, et al. Long-term effects of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion on glucose control and microvascular complications in patients with type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2017; 11(5):924-9. doi: 10.1177/1932296817700161.
9. Zabeen B, Craig ME, Virk SA. Insulin Pump Therapy Is Associated with Lower Rates of Retinopathy and Peripheral Nerve Abnormality. PLoS One 2016;11(4):e0153033. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153033.
10. Szypowska A, Schwandt A, Svensson J, et al. Insulin pump therapy in children with type 1 diabetes: analysis of data from the SWEET registry. Pediatr Diabetes 2016;17 Suppl 23:38-45. doi: 10.1111/pedi.12416.
11. Karges B, Schwandt A, Heidtmann B, et al. Association of insulin pump therapy vs insulin injection therapy with severe hypoglycemia, ketoacidosis, and glycemic control among children, adolescents, and young adults with type 1 diabetes. JAMA 2017;318 (14):1358-66. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.13994.
12. Rankin D, Harden J, Noyes K, et al. Parents’ experiences of managing their child’s diabetes using an insulin pump: a qualitative study. Diabet Med 2015;32(5):627-34. doi: 10. 1111/dme.12683.
13. Kamrath C, Tittel SR, Kapellen TM, et al. Early versus delayed insulin pump therapy in children with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes: results from the multicentre, prospective diabetes follow-up DPV registry. Lancet Child Adolesc Health 2021;5(1):17-25. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30339-4.
14. Bergenstal RM, Tamborlane WV, Ahmann A, et al. Sensor-augmented pump therapy for A1C reduction (STAR 3) study: results from the 6-month continuation phase. Diabetes Care 2011;34(11):2403-5. doi: 10. 2337/dc11-1248.
15. Garg S, Brazg RL, Bailey TS, et al. Reduction in duration of hypoglycemia by automatic suspension of insulin delivery: the in-clinic ASPIRE study. Diabetes Technol Ther 2012;14(3):205-9. doi: 10.1089/dia.2011.0292.
16. Sherr JL, Tauschmann M, Battelino T, et al. ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2018: Diabetes technologies. Pediatric Diabetes 2018;19(Suppl 27);302-25. doi: 10. 1111/pedi.12731.
17. Tornese G, Buzzurro F, Carletti C, Faleschini E, Barbi E. Six-month effectiveness of advanced vs. standard hybrid closed-loop system in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Front Endocrinol 2021; 1456(12);1664-2392. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2021. 766314.
18. Beck RW, Bergenstal RM, Cheng P, et al. The relationships between time in range, hyperglycemia metrics, and HbA1c. J Diabetes Sci Technol 13(4):614-26. doi: 10.1177/ 1932296818822496.
19. Vigersky RA, McMahon C. The relationship of hemoglobin A1C to time-in-range in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2019;21:81-5. doi: 10.1089/dia.2018.0310.
20. Beck RW, Bergenstal RM, Riddlesworth TD, et al. Validation of time in range as an outcome measure for diabetes clinical trials. Diabetes Care 2019;42:400-5. doi: 10.2337/ dc18-1444.
21. Battelino T, Danne T, Bergenstal RM, Amiel SA, Beck R, et al. Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: recommendations from the international consensus on time in range. Diabetes Care 2019;42(8):1593-1603. doi: 10.2337/dci19-0028.
22. Lepore G, Bonfanti R, Bozzetto L, et al. Metabolic control and complications in Italian people with diabetes treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2018;28(4):335-42. doi: 10.1016/j.numecd.2017.12.001.
23. Swaminathan K, Mukhekar V, Cohen O. Breaking socioeconomic barriers in diabetes technologies: outcomes of a pilot insulin pump programme for the underprivileged in Rural India. Indian J Endocrinol Metab 2019; 23(2):242-5. doi: 10.4103/ijem.IJEM_645_18.
24. Prinz N, Baechle C, Becker M, et al. Insulin pumps in type 1 diabetes with mental disorders: real-life clinical data indicate discrepancies to recommendations. Diabetes Technol Ther 2016;18(1):34-8. doi: 10.1089/dia. 2015.0180.
Corrispondenza: martina.dagostin@gmail.com