Children and Adolescents With Hybrid Diabetes: A Management Conundrum
Authors' conclusion
Phenotypic and metabolic differences were seen in youth with T1DM, HD, and T2DM at diagnosis and follow-up. At 2 years, all subjects with HD remained insulin dependent whereas some with T2DM were not, indicating the need for targeted interventions to address the etiopathogenesis.
Study context
- Population
- Patients aged 0 to 19 years with new-onset diabetes 2016–2020, with C-peptide and 4 DAA measurements available
- Participants
- 102 patients
- Exposure
- Hybrid diabetes vs T1D vs T2D
- T1DMn = 32
- Hybrid diabetes (HD)n = 21
- T2DMn = 49
- Outcome
- Characteristics at diagnosis
- Follow-up
- Diagnosis
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
- Non-Hispanic Whites, T1DM vs HD vs T2DM
- 81.3% vs 47.6% vs 16.4%, P < .001
- Family history of T2D, T1DM vs HD vs T2DM
- 37.5% vs 100% vs 85.4%, P < .001
- Acanthosis nigricans, T1DM vs HD vs T2DM
- 0% vs 42.9% vs 93.9%, P <.001
- Median BMI z-score, T1DM vs HD vs T2DM
- −0.55 vs 1.8 vs 2.4, P <.001
- Median C-peptide, T1DM vs HD vs T2DM
- 0.4 ng/mL vs 0.9 ng/mL vs 2.4 ng/mL, P <.001
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Characteristics at 2 years
- Median BMI z-score, T1DM vs HD vs T2DM
- 0.3 vs 1.9 vs 2.3, P <.001
- Mean HDL-C, T1DM vs HD vs T2DM
- 58.0 mg/dL vs 48.2 mg/dL vs 39.5 mg/dL, P <.001
- Basal insulin use, T1DM vs HD vs T2DM
- 100% vs 100% vs 74.4%, P <.001
Original publication
Children and Adolescents With Hybrid Diabetes: A Management Conundrum. Endocr Pract. Published 31 October 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →