JOURNAL OF THE CZECH PEDIATRIC SOCIETY AND THE SLOVAK PEDIATRIC SOCIETY

Čes-slov Pediat 2022, 77(2):64-71 | DOI: 10.55095/CSPediatrie2022/008

Continuing improvement in metabolic control in Czech children with type 1 diabetes: data from the ČENDA registry (2013-2020)Original Papers

Zdeněk Šumník1, Petra Konečná2, Petra Venháčová3, David Neumann4, Jaroslav Škvor5, Renata Pomahačová6, Jiří Strnadel7, Štěpánka Průhová1, Lenka Petruželková1, Jan Vosáhlo8, Kamila Kocourková9, Markéta Pavlíková10, Ondřej Cinek1, za konsorcium ČENDA
1 Pediatrická klinika 2. LF UK a FN v Motole, Praha
2 Pediatrická klinika FN a LF MU, Brno
3 Dětská klinika FN a LF UP, Olomouc
4 Dětská klinika FN a LF UK, Hradec Králové
5 Dětská klinika Masarykovy nemocnice a IPVZ, Ústí nad Labem
6 Dětská klinika FN a LF UK, Plzeň
7 Dětská klinika FN a LF OU, Ostrava
8 Klinika dětí a dorostu 3. LF UK a FNKV, Praha
9 Dětská klinika Nemocnice České Budějovice
10 Katedra pravděpodobnosti a statistiky, MFF UK, Praha

Introduction: Diabetes belongs to the most common chronic diseases in childhood. Web-based national longitudinal pediatric diabetes registry (ČENDA) was established in 2013 by the joint efforts of Czech centers of pediatric diabetes. Since then, the ČENDA registry represents an important source of data on the course, control, therapy and complications of diabetes in children and adolescents. This paper summarizes trends in key parameters of diabetes control over the first 8 years of the ČENDA registry.

Results: In 2020, the register contained data from 3818 patients, i. e. approximately 90% of children with diabetes in the Czech Republic. The registry data shows a decreasing trend in HbA1c in children with Type 1 diabetes - the mean HbA1c dropped by 12 mmol/mol from 66.6 mmol/mol in 2013 to 54.7 mmol/mol in 2020 (p < 0.001). This change was accompanied by a reduction in the incidence of acute diabetic complications. Main predictors associated with lower HbA1c were treatment using modern technologies (insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors), male sex, and care provided at a large diabetes center.

Conclusion: The prognosis of Czech children with type 1 diabetes has significantly improved in recent years. The introduction of modern technologies into clinical practice and the establishment of the ČENDA registry have very likely contributed to this positive trend.

Keywords: type 1 diabetes, children, epidemiology, HbA1c, registry

Published: March 15, 2022  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Šumník Z, Konečná P, Venháčová P, Neumann D, Škvor J, Pomahačová R, et al.. Continuing improvement in metabolic control in Czech children with type 1 diabetes: data from the ČENDA registry (2013-2020). Ces-slov Pediat. 2022;77(2):64-71. doi: 10.55095/CSPediatrie2022/008.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Patterson CC, Harjutsalo V, Rosenbauer J, et al. Trends and cyclical variation in the incidence of childhood type 1 diabetes in 26 European centres in the 25 year period 1989-2013: a multicentre prospective registration study. Diabetologia 2019; 62(3): 408-417. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    2. Cinek O, Šumník Z, Vavřinec J. Childhood diabetes in the Czech Republic: a steady increase in incidence. Cas Lek Cesk 2005; 144(4): 266-71. Go to PubMed...
    3. Cinek O, Kulich M, Šumník Z. The incidence of type 1 diabetes in young Czech children stopped rising. Pediatr Diabetes 2012; 13(7): 559-63. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    4. McEwen LN, Casagrande SS, Kuo S, Herman WH. Why are diabetes medications so expensive and what can be done to control their cost? Curr Diab Rep 2017; 17(9): 71. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    5. Mayer-Davis EJ, Kahkoska AR, Jefferies C, et al. ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2018: Definition, epidemiology, and classification of diabetes in children and adolescents. Pediatr Diabetes 2018; 19(Suppl 27): 7-19. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    6. Zeitler P, Arslanian S, Fu J, et al. ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2018: Type 2 diabetes mellitus in youth. Pediatr Diabetes 2018; 19(Suppl 27): 28-46. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    7. Rawshani A, Sattar N, Franzén S, et al. Excess mortality and cardiovascular disease in young adults with type 1 diabetes in relation to age at onset: a nationwide, register-based cohort study. Lancet 2018; 392(10146): 477-486. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    8. DiMeglio LA, Acerini CL, Codner E, et al. ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2018: Glycemic control tar-gets and glucose monitoring for children, adolescents, and young adults with diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes 2018; 19(Suppl 27): 105-114. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    9. Foster NC, Beck RW, Miller KM, et al. State of type 1 diabetes management and outcomes from the T1D Exchange in 2016-2018. Diabetes Technol Ther 2019; 21(2): 66-72. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    10. Šumník Z, Venháčová J, Škvor J, et al.; ČENDA Project Group. Five years of improving diabetes control in Czech children after the establishment of the population-based childhood diabetes register CENDA. Pediatr Diabetes 2020; 21(1): 77-87. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    11. Šumník Z, Pavlíková M, Pomahačová R, et al.; ČENDA Project Group. Use of continuous glucose monitoring and its association with type 1 diabetes control in children over the first 3 years of reimbursement approval: Population data from the CENDA registry. Pediatr Diabetes 2021; 22(3): 439-447. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    12. Battelino T, Danne T, Bergenstal RM, 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. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    13. Braffett BH, Gubitosi-Klug RA, Albers JW, et al. Risk factors for diabetic peripheral neuropathy and cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) Study. Diabetes 2020; 69(5): 1000-1010. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    14. Bebu I, Schade D, Braffett B, et al. Risk factors for first and subsequent CVD events in type 1 diabetes: The DCCT/EDIC Study. Diabetes Care 2020; 43(4): 867-874. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    15. Jacobson AM, Ryan CM, Braffett BH, et al.; DCCT/EDIC Research Group. Cognitive performance declines in older adults with type 1 diabetes: results from 32 years of follow-up in the DCCT and EDIC Study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2021; 9(7): 436-445. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    16. Lind M, Pivodic A, Svensson AM, et al. HbA(1c) level as a risk factor for retinopathy and nephropathy in children and adults with type 1 diabetes: Swedish population based cohort study. BMJ 2019; 366: l4894. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    17. Hermann JM, Miller KM, Hofer SE, et al.; T1D Exchange Clinic Network and the DPV initiative. The Transatlantic HbA(1c) gap: differences in glycaemic control across the lifespan between people included in the US T1D Exchange Registry and those included in the German/Austrian DPV registry. Diabet Med 2020; 37(5): 848-855. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    18. Danne T, Lanzinger S, de Bock M, et al. A worldwide perspective on COVID-19 and diabetes management in 22,820 children from the SWEET Project: diabetic ketoacidosis rates increase and glycemic control is maintained. Diabetes Technol Ther 2021; 23(9): 632-641. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    19. Miller KM, Foster NC, Beck RW, et al.; T1D Exchange Clinic Network. Current state of type 1 diabetes treatment in the U.S.: updated data from the T1D Exchange clinic registry. Diabetes Care 2015; 38(6): 971-8. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    20. Samuelsson U, Åkesson K, Peterson A, et al. Continued improvement of metabolic control in Swedish pediatric diabetes care. Pediatr Diabetes. 2018; 19(1): 150-157. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    21. Skipper N, Thingholm PR, Borch L, et al. Center differences in diabetes treatment outcomes among children with type 1 diabetes: A nationwide study of 3866 Danish children. Pediatr Diabetes 2021. doi: 10.1111/pedi.13284 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    22. Šumník Z, Szypowska A, Iotova V, et al.; SWEET study group. Persistent heterogeneity in diabetes technology reimbursement for children with type 1 diabetes: The SWEET perspective. Pediatr Diabetes 2019; 20(4): 434-443. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    23. Birkebaek NH, Hermann JM, Hanberger L, et al. Center size and glycemic control: an international study with 504 centers from seven countries. Diabetes Care 2019; 42(3): e37-e39. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    24. Věstník Ministerstva zdravotnictví ČR 08/2019 ze dne 30. 8. 2019. Dostupné na: https: //www.mzcr.cz/vestnik/vestnik-c-8-2019/

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content