Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is 1 of the most common neurobehavioral disorders of childhood and can profoundly affect children's academic achievement, well-being, and social ...interactions. The American Academy of Pediatrics first published clinical recommendations for evaluation and diagnosis of pediatric ADHD in 2000; recommendations for treatment followed in 2001. The guidelines were revised in 2011 and published with an accompanying process of care algorithm (PoCA) providing discrete and manageable steps by which clinicians could fulfill the clinical guideline's recommendations. Since the release of the 2011 guideline, the
has been revised to the fifth edition, and new ADHD-related research has been published. These publications do not support dramatic changes to the previous recommendations. Therefore, only incremental updates have been made in this guideline revision, including the addition of a key action statement related to diagnosis and treatment of comorbid conditions in children and adolescents with ADHD. The accompanying process of care algorithm has also been updated to assist in implementing the guideline recommendations. Throughout the process of revising the guideline and algorithm, numerous systemic barriers were identified that restrict and/or hamper pediatric clinicians' ability to adopt their recommendations. Therefore, the subcommittee created a companion article (available in the Supplemental Information) on systemic barriers to the care of children and adolescents with ADHD, which identifies the major systemic-level barriers and presents recommendations to address those barriers; in this article, we support the recommendations of the clinical practice guideline and accompanying process of care algorithm.
Hypoglycemia engenders an autonomically mediated counterregulatory (CR)-response that stimulates endogenous glucose production to maintain concentrations within an appropriate physiological range. ...Although the involvement of the brain in preserving normoglycemia has been established, the neurocircuitry underlying centrally mediated CR-responses remains unclear. Here we demonstrate that lateral parabrachial nucleus cholecystokinin (CCKLPBN) neurons are a population of glucose-sensing cells (glucose inhibited) with counterregulatory capacity. Furthermore, we reveal that steroidogenic-factor 1 (SF1)-expressing neurons of the ventromedial nucleus of the hypothalamus (SF1VMH) are the specific target of CCKLPBN glucoregulatory neurons. This discrete CCKLPBN→SF1VMH neurocircuit is both necessary and sufficient for the induction of CR-responses. Together, these data identify CCKLPBN neurons, and specifically CCK neuropeptide, as glucoregulatory and provide significant insight into the homeostatic mechanisms controlling CR-responses to hypoglycemia.
Display omitted
•CCKLPBN neurons are glucose inhibited and activated by hypoglycemia•CCKLPBN neurons are necessary and sufficient for counterregulatory (CR)-responses•CCK neuropeptide is the key mediator of CCKLPBN neuron-mediated CR-responses•CCKLPBN neuron-induced CR-responses require downstream SF1VMH neurons
The counterregulatory response (CRR) to hypoglycemia is critical for the maintenance of normoglycemia and governed by the brain. Garfield et al. identify a population of brainstem CCK neurons that directly sense extracellular glucose concentrations and, via their connection to SF1 hypothalamic neurons, promote CRR.
The feasibility, safety, and efficacy of prolonged use of an artificial beta cell (closed-loop insulin-delivery system) in the home setting have not been established.
In two multicenter, crossover, ...randomized, controlled studies conducted under free-living home conditions, we compared closed-loop insulin delivery with sensor-augmented pump therapy in 58 patients with type 1 diabetes. The closed-loop system was used day and night by 33 adults and overnight by 25 children and adolescents. Participants used the closed-loop system for a 12-week period and sensor-augmented pump therapy (control) for a similar period. The primary end point was the proportion of time that the glucose level was between 70 mg and 180 mg per deciliter for adults and between 70 mg and 145 mg per deciliter for children and adolescents.
Among adults, the proportion of time that the glucose level was in the target range was 11.0 percentage points (95% confidence interval CI, 8.1 to 13.8) greater with the use of the closed-loop system day and night than with control therapy (P<0.001). The mean glucose level was lower during the closed-loop phase than during the control phase (difference, -11 mg per deciliter; 95% CI, -17 to -6; P<0.001), as were the area under the curve for the period when the glucose level was less than 63 mg per deciliter (39% lower; 95% CI, 24 to 51; P<0.001) and the mean glycated hemoglobin level (difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -0.5 to -0.1; P=0.002). Among children and adolescents, the proportion of time with the nighttime glucose level in the target range was higher during the closed-loop phase than during the control phase (by 24.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 20.6 to 28.7; P<0.001), and the mean nighttime glucose level was lower (difference, -29 mg per deciliter; 95% CI, -39 to -20; P<0.001). The area under the curve for the period in which the day-and-night glucose levels were less than 63 mg per deciliter was lower by 42% (95% CI, 4 to 65; P=0.03). Three severe hypoglycemic episodes occurred during the closed-loop phase when the closed-loop system was not in use.
Among patients with type 1 diabetes, 12-week use of a closed-loop system, as compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy, improved glucose control, reduced hypoglycemia, and, in adults, resulted in a lower glycated hemoglobin level. (Funded by the JDRF and others; AP@home04 and APCam08 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01961622 and NCT01778348.).
In adults with type 2 diabetes, the benefits of fully closed-loop insulin delivery, which does not require meal bolusing, are unclear. In an open-label, single-center, randomized crossover study, 26 ...adults with type 2 diabetes (7 women and 19 men; (mean ± s.d.) age, 59 ± 11 years; baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), 75 ± 15 mmol mol
(9.0% ± 1.4%)) underwent two 8-week periods to compare the CamAPS HX fully closed-loop app with standard insulin therapy and a masked glucose sensor (control) in random order, with a 2-week to 4-week washout between periods. The primary endpoint was proportion of time in target glucose range (3.9-10.0 mmol l
). Analysis was by intention to treat. Thirty participants were recruited between 16 December 2020 and 24 November 2021, of whom 28 were randomized to two groups (14 to closed-loop therapy first and 14 to control therapy first). Proportion of time in target glucose range (mean ± s.d.) was 66.3% ± 14.9% with closed-loop therapy versus 32.3% ± 24.7% with control therapy (mean difference, 35.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval (CI), 28.0-42.6 percentage points; P < 0.001). Time > 10.0 mmol l
was 33.2% ± 14.8% with closed-loop therapy versus 67.0% ± 25.2% with control therapy (mean difference, -35.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -42.8 to -27.5 percentage points; P < 0.001). Mean glucose was lower during the closed-loop therapy period than during the control therapy period (9.2 ± 1.2 mmol l
versus 12.6 ± 3.0 mmol l
, respectively; mean difference, -3.6 mmol l
; 95% CI, -4.6 to -2.5 mmol l
; P < 0.001). HbA1c was lower following closed-loop therapy (57 ± 9 mmol mol
(7.3% ± 0.8%)) than following control therapy (72 ± 13 mmol mol
(8.7% ± 1.2%); mean difference, -15 mmol mol
; 95% CI, -11 to -20 mmol l
(mean difference, -1.4%; 95% CI, -1.0 to -1.8%); P < 0.001). Time < 3.9 mmol l
was similar between treatments (a median of 0.44% (interquartile range, 0.19-0.81%) during the closed-loop therapy period versus a median of 0.08% (interquartile range, 0.00-1.05%) during the control therapy period; P = 0.43). No severe hypoglycemia events occurred in either period. One treatment-related serious adverse event occurred during the closed-loop therapy period. Fully closed-loop insulin delivery improved glucose control without increasing hypoglycemia compared with standard insulin therapy and may represent a safe and efficacious method to improve outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04701424).
In patients with diabetes, hospitalization can complicate the achievement of recommended glycemic targets. There is increasing evidence that a closed-loop delivery system (artificial pancreas) can ...improve glucose control in patients with type 1 diabetes. We wanted to investigate whether a closed-loop system could also improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes who were receiving noncritical care.
In this randomized, open-label trial conducted on general wards in two tertiary hospitals located in the United Kingdom and Switzerland, we assigned 136 adults with type 2 diabetes who required subcutaneous insulin therapy to receive either closed-loop insulin delivery (70 patients) or conventional subcutaneous insulin therapy, according to local clinical practice (66 patients). The primary end point was the percentage of time that the sensor glucose measurement was within the target range of 100 to 180 mg per deciliter (5.6 to 10.0 mmol per liter) for up to 15 days or until hospital discharge.
The mean (±SD) percentage of time that the sensor glucose measurement was in the target range was 65.8±16.8% in the closed-loop group and 41.5±16.9% in the control group, a difference of 24.3±2.9 percentage points (95% confidence interval CI, 18.6 to 30.0; P<0.001); values above the target range were found in 23.6±16.6% and 49.5±22.8% of the patients, respectively, a difference of 25.9±3.4 percentage points (95% CI, 19.2 to 32.7; P<0.001). The mean glucose level was 154 mg per deciliter (8.5 mmol per liter) in the closed-loop group and 188 mg per deciliter (10.4 mmol per liter) in the control group (P<0.001). There was no significant between-group difference in the duration of hypoglycemia (as defined by a sensor glucose measurement of <54 mg per deciliter; P=0.80) or in the amount of insulin that was delivered (median dose, 44.4 U and 40.2 U, respectively; P=0.50). No episode of severe hypoglycemia or clinically significant hyperglycemia with ketonemia occurred in either trial group.
Among inpatients with type 2 diabetes receiving noncritical care, the use of an automated, closed-loop insulin-delivery system resulted in significantly better glycemic control than conventional subcutaneous insulin therapy, without a higher risk of hypoglycemia. (Funded by Diabetes UK and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01774565 .).
The achievement of glycaemic control remains challenging for patients with type 1 diabetes. We assessed the effectiveness of day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery compared with ...sensor-augmented pump therapy in people with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes aged 6 years and older.
In this open-label, multicentre, multinational, single-period, parallel randomised controlled trial, participants were recruited from diabetes outpatient clinics at four hospitals in the UK and two centres in the USA. We randomly assigned participants with type 1 diabetes aged 6 years and older treated with insulin pump and with suboptimal glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin HbA1c 7·5–10·0%) to receive either hybrid closed-loop therapy or sensor-augmented pump therapy over 12 weeks of free living. Training on study insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring took place over a 4-week run-in period. Eligible subjects were randomly assigned using central randomisation software. Allocation to the two study groups was unblinded, and randomisation was stratified within centre by low (<8·5%) or high (≥8·5%) HbA1c. The primary endpoint was the proportion of time that glucose concentration was within the target range of 3·9–10·0 mmol/L at 12 weeks post randomisation. Analyses of primary outcome and safety measures were done in all randomised patients. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02523131, and is closed to accrual.
From May 12, 2016, to Nov 17, 2017, 114 individuals were screened, and 86 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive hybrid closed-loop therapy (n=46) or sensor-augmented pump therapy (n=40; control group). The proportion of time that glucose concentration was within the target range was significantly higher in the closed-loop group (65%, SD 8) compared with the control group (54%, SD 9; mean difference in change 10·8 percentage points, 95% CI 8·2 to 13·5; p<0·0001). In the closed-loop group, HbA1c was reduced from a screening value of 8·3% (SD 0·6) to 8·0% (SD 0·6) after the 4-week run-in, and to 7·4% (SD 0·6) after the 12-week intervention period. In the control group, the HbA1c values were 8·2% (SD 0·5) at screening, 7·8% (SD 0·6) after run-in, and 7·7% (SD 0·5) after intervention; reductions in HbA1c percentages were significantly greater in the closed-loop group compared with the control group (mean difference in change 0·36%, 95% CI 0·19 to 0·53; p<0·0001). The time spent with glucose concentrations below 3·9 mmol/L (mean difference in change −0·83 percentage points, −1·40 to −0·16; p=0·0013) and above 10·0 mmol/L (mean difference in change −10·3 percentage points, −13·2 to −7·5; p<0·0001) was shorter in the closed-loop group than the control group. The coefficient of variation of sensor-measured glucose was not different between interventions (mean difference in change −0·4%, 95% CI −1·4% to 0·7%; p=0·50). Similarly, total daily insulin dose was not different (mean difference in change 0·031 U/kg per day, 95% CI −0·005 to 0·067; p=0·09) and bodyweight did not differ (mean difference in change 0·68 kg, 95% CI −0·34 to 1·69; p=0·19). No severe hypoglycaemia occurred. One diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in the closed-loop group due to infusion set failure. Two participants in each study group had significant hyperglycaemia, and there were 13 other adverse events in the closed-loop group and three in the control group.
Hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery improves glucose control while reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia across a wide age range in patients with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes.
JDRF, NIHR, and Wellcome Trust.
In this recent 2019–2020 audit, 96% (168/173) of paediatric diabetes teams submitted data and included a total of 29,242 children and young people (CYP) up to the age of 24 years, and type 1 diabetes ...consisted of 27,653 CYP. One of the key findings was that CYP with type 1 diabetes from minority ethnic communities have higher HbA1 compared to white ethnicity and that significantly lower use of insulin pumps or real‐time continuous glucose monitoring systems was used among black children. There has been an increasing trend of widening health inequalities reported the past 6 years. As chairs of Diabetes UK Diabetes Research Study Groups, the authors urge that research into barriers of access to technology for T1D in CYP in the UK specifically looking at provider bias, systemic issues within the health system, and individual and family factors are conducted with urgency.
In the study, 181 adults (88 women and 93 men) with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes and sub optimal control (glycated haemoglobin HbA1c ≥7·5% 58 mmol/mol to ≤11% 97 mmol/mol) were randomly assigned ...(1:1) to the intervention group, in which patients used the d-Nav device in combination with health-care professional support, or the control group, in which patients continued with a standard meter for glucose monitoring but otherwise received identical health-care professional contact. The reported metabolic outcomes are similar to those reported in an earlier single-arm service evaluation assessment of the same device in a UK setting5 and a broadly similar system in which dose advice was fed back to health-care providers.6 As expected in the context of a clinical trial, both groups had frequent contact with study team members, with seven face-to-face or telephone contacts over the period of 6 months. ...importantly, how comfortable would patients and clinical teams be in allowing an algorithm to manage insulin dose titration?
PDF
