Objective We examined whether diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), a serious complication of type 1 diabetes (T1D) was more prevalent among Non-Hispanic (NH) Black and Hispanic patients with T1D and laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) compared with NH Whites. Method This is a cross-sectional study of patients with T1D and laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from 52 clinical sites in the United States, data were collected from April to August 2020. We examined the distribution of patient factors and DKA events across NH White, NH Black, and Hispanic race/ethnicity groups. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the odds of DKA among NH Black and Hispanic patients with T1D as compared with NH White patients, adjusting for potential confounders, such as age, sex, insurance, and last glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level. Results We included 180 patients with T1D and laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in the analysis. Forty-four percent (n = 79) were NH White, 31% (n = 55) NH Black, 26% (n = 46) Hispanic. NH Blacks and Hispanics had higher median HbA1c than Whites (%-points [IQR]: 11.7 [4.7], P < 0.001, and 9.7 [3.1] vs 8.3 [2.4], P = 0.01, respectively). We found that more NH Black and Hispanic presented with DKA compared to Whites (55% and 33% vs 13%, P < 0.001 and P = 0.008, respectively). After adjusting for potential confounders, NH Black patients continued to have greater odds of presenting with DKA compared with NH Whites (OR [95% CI]: 3.7 [1.4, 10.6]). Conclusion We found that among T1D patients with COVID-19 infection, NH Black patients were more likely to present in DKA compared with NH White patients. Our findings demonstrate additional risk among NH Black patients with T1D and COVID-19.

Background The diagnosis of hypoglycemia and the use of diazoxide have risen in the last decade. Diazoxide is the only FDA-approved pharmacologic treatment for neonatal hypoglycemia caused by hyperinsulinism (HI). Recent publications have highlighted that diazoxide has serious adverse effects (AEs) such as pulmonary hypertension (2-3%) and neutropenia (15%). Despite its increasing use, there is little information regarding dosing of diazoxide and/or monitoring for AEs. Methods We convened a working group of pediatric endocrinologists who were members of the Drug and Therapeutics Committee of the Pediatric Endocrine Society (PES) to review the available literature. Our Committee sent a survey to its PES members regarding the use of diazoxide in their endocrine practices. Our review of the results concluded that there was substantial heterogeneity in usage and monitoring for AEs for diazoxide among pediatric endocrinologists. Conclusions Based on our extensive literature review and on the lack of consensus regarding use of diazoxide noted in our PES survey, our group graded the evidence using the framework of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group, and has proposed expert consensus practice guidelines for the appropriate use of diazoxide in infants and children with HI. We summarized information on AEs reported to date and have provided practical ideas for dosing and monitoring for AEs in infants treated with diazoxide.

Background: Despite documented benefits of diabetes technology in managing type 1 diabetes, inequities persist in the use of these devices. Provider bias may be a driver of inequities, but the evidence is limited. Therefore, we aimed to examine the role of race/ethnicity and insurance-mediated provider implicit bias in recommending diabetes technology. Method: We recruited 109 adult and pediatric diabetes providers across 7 U.S. endocrinology centers to complete an implicit bias assessment composed of a clinical vignette and ranking exercise. Providers were randomized to receive clinical vignettes with differing insurance and patient names as proxy for Racial–Ethnic identity. Bias was identified if providers: (1) recommended more technology for patients with an English name (Racial–Ethnic bias) or private insurance (insurance bias), or (2) Race/Ethnicity or insurance was ranked high (Racial–Ethnic and insurance bias, respectively) in recommending diabetes technology. Provider characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression. Result: Insurance-mediated implicit bias was common in our cohort ( n = 66, 61%). Providers who were identified to have insurance-mediated bias had greater years in practice (5.3 ± 5.3 years vs. 9.3 ± 9 years, P = 0.006). Racial–Ethnic-mediated implicit bias was also observed in our study ( n = 37, 34%). Compared with those without Racial–Ethnic bias, providers with Racial–Ethnic bias were more likely to state that they could recognize their own implicit bias (89% vs. 61%, P = 0.001). Conclusion: Provider implicit bias to recommend diabetes technology was observed based on insurance and Race/Ethnicity in our pediatric and adult diabetes provider cohort. These data raise the need to address provider implicit bias in diabetes care.

No abstract