Intensive vs. conventional insulin management initiated at diagnosis in children with diabetes: Should payer source influence the choice of therapy?

Intensive vs. conventional insulin management initiated at diagnosis in children with diabetes: Should payer source influence the choice of therapy?: Intensive insulin management (IIM) in type 1 diabetes facilitates improved glycemic control and a reduction in long-term diabetes complications. We hypothesized that IIM can be started at diagnosis without deleterious effects on hemoglobin A1c (A1c), body mass index (BMI), and severe hypoglycemia regardless of payer source. Type 1 diabetes patients aged 0-18 yrs, in an academic endocrinology practice were identified for a retrospective chart review. Fifty-four patients on conventional insulin management (CIM) were compared to 51 on IIM. Insulin regimens, payer, and A1c values were compared at baseline, 12, 15, and 18 months. Secondary analyses included BMI changes and hypoglycemia frequency. Overall mean A1c values for the IIM group (8.15 ± 1.41) were lower across all time periods compared to the CIM group (8.57 ± 1.52). Repeated measures anova revealed a significant treatment group effect (p = 0.01) with no time effect (p = 0.87) or interaction (group by time) effect (p = 0.65). Private insurance patients had lower mean A1C values than Medicaid patients (χ² = 4.5186, p < 0.05), regardless of regimen. A1c values between IIM and CIM were not statistically different within the Medicaid group. BMI changes between groups were not different. Chi-square analysis for severe hypoglycemia revealed no group differences. In conclusion, IIM had improved glycemic control. Private insurance vs. Medicaid patients had lower mean A1c values regardless of treatment group. Considering Medicaid patients only, IIM was not inferior, and for those with private insurance, IIM was superior. IIM, initiated at diagnosis, is a reasonable approach for newly diagnosed children with diabetes regardless of payer source.