Differences in positive expectancy of hybrid closed loop (HCL) insulin delivery systems do not explain racial differences in HCL use

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Date

6-1-2023

Journal

Journal of clinical & translational endocrinology

Volume

32

DOI

10.1016/j.jcte.2023.100319

Keywords

Automated Insulin Delivery; Closed-loop systems; Minorities; Pediatrics; Type 1 diabetes

Abstract

AIMS: Hybrid closed loop (HCL) insulin delivery systems improve glycemia and quality of life among youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D), however there are inequities in use. We aimed to evaluate whether differences in positive expectancy of HCL systems may explain differences in use. METHODS: Fifteen publicly-insured, non-Hispanic Black (NHB) youth with hemoglobin A1 (HbA1c) ≥ 10% enrolled in a study exploring changes in glycemia and person reported outcomes (PRO) during 6 months of Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ technology. At baseline youth and parents completed PROs, including Insulin Delivery Systems: Perceptions, Ideas, Reflections and Expectations (INSPIRE) survey assessing positive expectancy of HCL use, and Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) survey assessing diabetes-related distress. Differences between this cohort and the Tandem Control-IQ pediatric pivotal trial (DCLP5) cohort were assessed. RESULTS: As compared to the DCLP5 cohort (0% NHB, 10% publicly-insured), baseline glycemic indicators were suboptimal (M 11.9 ± 1.4% vs 7.6 ± 0.9%, p < 0.0001; continuous glucose monitor (CGM) time-above-range > 180 mg/dL 82 ± 15% vs 45 ± 18%, p < 0.0001). INSPIRE scores in both cohorts were equally high among youth (80 ± 10 vs 77 ± 13, p = 0.41) and parents (88 ± 14 vs 85 ± 11, p = 0.37). PAID scores were higher among parents (68 ± 19 vs 43 ± 16, p < 0.0001), but not youth (43 ± 16 vs 35 ± 16, p = 0.09) in the historically marginalized cohort as compared to the DCLP5 cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences in glycemic control and diabetes related burden, positive expectancy of HCL systems is comparable among historically marginalized youth with T1D and the predominantly non-Hispanic White, privately insured DCLP5 cohort. These findings suggest that differences in perceptions of HCL technology may not explain inequities in use.

Department

Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS