4.3 Article

Pediatric diabetes and skin disease (PeDiSkin): A cross-sectional study in 369 children, adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes

期刊

PEDIATRIC DIABETES
卷 21, 期 8, 页码 1556-1565

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pedi.13130

关键词

diabetes; eczema; insulin; pruritus; quality of life; skin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The spectrum of skin disorders in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and their impact on affected persons are still incompletely understood. This study assessed the prevalence of skin diseases, cutaneous complications associated with T1D treatment and skin-related quality of life (QoL) in young T1D persons. Methods Participation in this interdisciplinary, single-center, cross-sectional, observational study was offered to all persons with T1D <= 20 years. Participants were characterized by a detailed medical history, routine laboratory workup, thorough clinical examinations and an established QoL questionnaire. Results Three hundred and sixty-nine persons were recruited (55% male; age 12.3 +/- 4.4 years; HbA1c 7.4 +/- 1.0%; mean +/- SD). Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) was used by 72.4%, multiple daily injections (MDI) by 27.6% and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) by 76%. Skin affections occurred in 91.8% of the study population. Device-associated lesions were most prevalent, including lipohypertrophy in 42.2% of MDI and 46.8% of CGM users and contact eczema associated with CSII or CGM in 14.2% and 18.3%, respectively. Diabetes-associated skin disorders and skin infections were rare or absent. Skin-related QoL impairment was low or absent in 95% of patients. Conclusions Skin diseases have a high prevalence and a broad spectrum in young persons with T1D. Eczematous reactions to CSII and CGM devices represent the most frequent skin complications. This highlights the need for regular skin checkups as an integral part of pediatric diabetes consultations and interdisciplinary cooperation for classification and treatment options.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据