AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Type 1 diabetes complicated by hypoglycaemia is prevalent in socioeconomically deprived populations. Islet transplantation is of proven efficacy in type 1 diabetes complicated by hypoglycaemia, but it is not known if nationally funded programmes reach the socioeconomically deprived. Our aim was to determine: (1) socioeconomic indices in participants referred to our nationally funded programme; and (2) if metabolic outcomes in our transplant recipients were improved. METHODS: Participants referred (n = 106) and receiving transplants (n = 18; 32 infusions) were examined with respect to socioeconomic status (deprivation category score) and their ability to work and drive. In participants followed for ≥12 months after transplantation, metabolic and anthropometric measurements (n = 14) were recorded pre- and post-transplant (assessed ~1, ~3, ~6 and ~12 months with mixed-meal tolerance tests and 6 day continuous glucose monitoring assessments). Donor data was also examined. RESULTS: There was a greater prevalence of socioeconomic deprivation in referred and transplant recipients than the general population (p < 0.05). Of the transplant recipients, 73% were socioeconomically deprived, 88% did not hold a driver's license and 94% had reduced ability to work (all p < 0.01 vs referred participants). Donors were predominantly obese and included circulatory death donors. At 12 months, 93% of participants who had received transplants had graft function, diminished frequency of hypoglycaemia (10 [4-11] vs 0 [0-2] hypoglycaemic episodes/week), improved awareness of hypoglycaemia (Gold score 7 [5-7] vs 1 [1-2]) and glycaemic control (HbA1c: 7.9% [7.2-8.5%]; 63 [55-69] mmol/mol vs 7.2% [6.8-7.5%]; 55 [51-58] mmol/mol), diminished glycaemic lability and decreased central adiposity (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: A nationally funded islet transplant programme reaches the socioeconomically deprived and outcomes are significantly improved in this group.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Forbes et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: