Abstract
Aims Improving glycaemic control in people with Type1 diabetes is known to reduce complications. Our aim was to compare glycaemic control among people with Type1 diabetes using data gathered in regional or national registries.
Methods Data were obtained for children and/or adults with Type1 diabetes from the following countries (or regions): Western Australia, Austria, Denmark, England, Champagne-Ardenne (France), Germany, Epirus, Thessaly and Thessaloniki (Greece), Galway (Ireland), several Italian regions, Latvia, Rotterdam (The Netherlands), Otago (New Zealand), Norway, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Sweden, Volyn (Ukraine), USA and Wales) from population or clinic-based registries. The sample size with available data varied from 355 to 173880. Proportions with HbA(1c) <58mmol/mol (<7.5%) and >= 75mmol/mol (>= 9.0%) were compared by age and sex.
Results Data were available for 324501 people. The proportions with HbA(1c) 58mmol/mol (<7.5%) varied from 15.7% to 46.4% among 44058 people aged < 15years, from 8.9% to 49.5% among 50766 people aged 15-24 years and from 20.5% to 53.6% among 229677 people aged >= 25 years. Sex differences in glycaemic control were small. Proportions of people using insulin pumps varied between the 12 sources with data available.
Conclusion These results suggest that there are substantial variations in glycaemic control among people with Type1 diabetes between the data sources and that there is room for improvement in all populations, especially in young adults.
What's new?
We present HbA(1c) data from registries in 19 different countries describing control in 324501 people with Type1 diabetes, across all age groups. These data are the best representation of diabetes care available and therefore describe the state of the art'. We show clearly that Type1 diabetes control is not as good as suggested in guidelines, but that some healthcare systems appear to result in better control than others. These data present a challenge to diabetes services. Leaders in diabetes units/service can compare their local data to our data and encourage improvement.