Background - Optimal management of insulin-treated pediatric and adolescent diabetes, particularly type 1 diabetes (T1D), requires precise insulin dosing and sick-day decision-making; deficiencies in either predispose to hypoglycemia, suboptimal glycaemic control, and diabetic ketoacidosis. We developed DiaBuddy™, a guideline-aligned mobile decision support tool, and evaluated its accuracy versus expert guidance and clinical changes observed during pilot evaluation in children and adolescents with insulin-treated diabetes. Methods - The preclinical validation compared DiaBuddy and family recommendations (N = 37) for 20 insulin-dosing and 20 sick-day vignettes against a pediatric endocrinologist gold standard. The prospective single-arm pilot study explored changes over 12 weeks in 20 children and adolescents with insulin-treated diabetes. HbA1c was the primary clinical outcome; CGM-derived metrics, PedsQL quality-of-life scores, application use, and satisfaction were exploratory secondary outcomes. Results - In the preclinical study, DiaBuddy showed lower absolute relative deviation for basal (5.0 ± 6.7% vs 24.2 ± 25.9%), bolus (6.9 ± 10.9% vs 45.3 ± 48.8%), and combined doses (6.3 ± 9.3% vs 39.0 ± 37.8%; all P < 0.001) than families. DiaBuddy™ achieved ≥90% accuracy across all sick-day domains versus 27-70% for families; and provided a guideline-concordant response in 94.5% of instances in which family responses were erroneous, including all instances involving an incorrect family hospitalisation decision. In the clinical study, HbA1c declined from 9.18 ± 1.99% to 8.48 ± 1.44% (p = 0.049) and the PedsQL score increased from 76.5 ± 8.6 to 89.1 ± 7.1 (+12.6 points, P < 0.001) with no change in CGM metrics. Application satisfaction was high (mean score 44.1 ± 4.1 out of 50) with most wishing to continue using it. Conclusions - DiaBuddy delivered guideline-aligned guidance in vignette testing. In this single-centre, uncontrolled pilot, observed changes in HbA1c and PedsQL are hypothesis-generating and require evaluation in an adequately powered multicentre randomised controlled trial.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mahapatra et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: