Allergic contact dermatitis in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes: An emerging issue

Insulin Pump Therapy and Adverse Skin Reactions With Focus on Allergic Contact Dermatitis in Individuals Living With Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Clinical-Based Update

BACKGROUND

The use of insulin pumps (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII]) in individuals living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) improves disease control. However, adverse skin reactions may hamper compliance. We aimed to assess the relationship of insulin pumps, particularly that of infusion set therapy, used in children and adults with T1D and dermatitis including allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, and EMBASE, of full-text studies reporting dermatitis in persons with diabetes using a CSII was conducted from 2020 to 2023. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality. The inventory performed at the Department of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology, Malmö, Sweden (YMDA) was also performed highlighting the diagnostic process.

RESULTS

Among the 391 screened abstracts, 21 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Seven studies included data on children only, four studies were on adults, and nine studies reported data on both children and adults. Participants were exposed to a broad range of pumps. Dermatitis was rarely specified. Up to 60% of those referred to a university hospital due to skin reactions possibly related to insulin pumps had an ACD.

CONCLUSIONS

The review and our findings indicate that there is not sufficient focus on contact allergy in the primary toxicological evaluations of substances used also for insulin pump therapy products and that possible adverse skin reactions are not correctly followed up in the clinical setting.

[Translated article] Medical Devices in Patients With Diabetes and Contact Dermatitis

The development and commercialization of glucose sensors and insulin pumps has revolutionized the management of diabetes. These devices have been linked to multiple cases of contact dermatitis in recent years, however, giving rise to a growing interest in identifying the sensitizing allergens. Isobornyl acrylate was clearly identified as one of the main allergens responsible for contact dermatitis among users of the FreeStyle glucose sensor and was subsequently removed from the product ingredients. Remarkably, however, it is still used in most other sensors on the market. The common adhesive ingredients colophony and abietic acid derivatives have also been shown to be sensitizing agents. New components under study, such as dipropylene glycol diacrylate, N,N-dimethylacrylamide, and triethylene glycol methacrylate have recently been identified as allergens, though they are not commercially available for clinical testing. The benefits offered by glucose sensors and insulin pumps may be offset by sensitization to product ingredients, in some cases forcing discontinuation and diminishing quality of life. Dermatologists should play a role in this clinical and research scenario, offering case-by-case guidance to endocrinologists on skin care and possible alternatives for patients with glucose sensors and insulin pumps who develop contact dermatitis. They should also collaborate with the manufacturers developing these devices.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Medical Devices in Patients With Diabetes and Contact Dermatitis

The development and commercialization of glucose sensors and insulin pumps has revolutionized the management of diabetes. These devices have been linked to multiple cases of contact dermatitis in recent years, however, giving rise to a growing interest in identifying the sensitizing allergens. Isobornyl acrylate (IBOA) was clearly identified as one of the main allergens responsible for contact dermatitis among users of the FreeStyle glucose sensor and was subsequently removed from the product ingredients. Remarkably, however, it is still used in most other sensors on the market. The common adhesive ingredients colophony and abietic acid derivatives have also been shown to be sensitizing agents. New components under study, such as dipropylene glycol diacrylate, N,N-dimethylacrylamide, and triethylene glycol methacrylate have recently been identified as allergens, though they are not commercially available for clinical testing. The benefits offered by glucose sensors and insulin pumps may be offset by sensitization to product ingredients, in some cases forcing discontinuation and diminishing quality of life. Dermatologists should play a role in this clinical and research scenario, offering case-by-case guidance to endocrinologists on skin care and possible alternatives for patients with glucose sensors and insulin pumps who develop contact dermatitis. They should also collaborate with the manufacturers developing these devices.

First International Survey on Diabetes Providers' Assessment of Skin Reactions in Youth With Type 1 Diabetes Using Technological Devices

BACKGROUND

Advances in diabetes technological devices led to optimization of diabetes care; however, long-lasting skin exposure to devices may be accompanied by an increasing occurrence of cutaneous reactions.

METHODS

We used an open-link web-based survey to evaluate diabetes-care providers' viewpoint on prevalence, management practices, and knowledge related to skin reactions with the use of diabetes technological devices. A post hoc analysis was applied to investigate differences in the level of awareness on this topic in relation to the experience in diabetes technology.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-five responses from 39 different countries were collected. Most respondents (69%) routinely examine patients' skin at each visit. All the preventive measures are not clear and, mainly, homogenously put into clinical practice. Contact dermatitis was the most frequently reported cutaneous complication due to diabetes devices, and its most common provocative causes are not yet fully known by diabetes-care providers. Almost half of the respondents (42%) had discussed the presence of harmful allergens contained in adhesives with device manufacturers. There is general agreement on the need to strengthen knowledge on dermatological complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Although diabetes-care providers are quite aware of the chance to develop skin reactions in people with diabetes using technological devices, there are still some unmet needs. Large follow-up studies and further dissemination tools are awaited to address the gaps revealed by our survey.

High incidence of skin reactions secondary to the use of adhesives in glucose sensors or insulin pumps for the treatment of children with type 1 diabetes

AIMS

To evaluate the incidence of the skin reactions secondary to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) or continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), sensors and the characteristics of affected children with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

An observational, retrospective, single-centre study included 198 children with type 1 diabetes, (46% girls, mean age 11.75 years). A standardised questionnaire was completed with the patient during current care to evaluate the skin reactions (mean and percentage), the type of reaction, their impact and the treatment) and the characteristics of affected children with univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven children (33.8%) reported active skin reactions: 45 children with CSII (30.4%) and 46 with CGM (23.5%). Children with skin reactions were younger (mean age 10.6 yo versus 12.34 yo, p < 0.05), with a younger age at the diagnosis of diabetes (5.59 yo versus 7.08 yo, p < 0.05). Atopy was more frequent in the group with skin reactions (76.1% versus 54.1% p < 0.05). On multivariate analysis, only the personal history of atopy was associated with skin reactions: OR 2.56 [1.16-5.97] (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the high incidence of skin reactions to adhesive devices used in the treatment of type 1 diabetes in children.

Prevalence and Description of the Skin Reactions Associated with Adhesives in Diabetes Technology Devices in an Adult Population: Results of the CUTADIAB Study

Objective: The use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) devices adhering to the skin can lead to skin reactions. The objective was to determine the prevalence and consequences of skin reactions at CGM or CSII sites in a large unbiased population. Research Design and Methods: This is a cross-sectional multicenter study. All adult patients with diabetes seen in consultation over a period of 7 months and using or having used a system with skin adhesives (in the last 10 years) were included and filled out a self-assessment questionnaire. Results: Among 851 patients, skin reaction was reported in 28% with CGM and 29% with CSII. Patients reporting reactions were more frequently women using CGM and CSII, and CGM users had type 1 more often than type 2 diabetes (P < 0.001). Manifestations were similar for reactions to CGM and CSII: redness and pruritus in 70%-75% of patients with reactions, pain in 20%-25%, and vesicles and desquamation in 12%-15%. Manifestations occurred within the first 24 h of first use in 22%-24% of patients with reactions to CGM and CSII, but after more than 6 months in 38% and 47% of patients with reactions to CGM and CSII, respectively. Device use was definitively stopped in 12% of patients with reactions to CGM (3.2% of all users) and 7% with reactions to CSII (2.1% of all users). Conclusions: Skin reactions were common, with similar presentations in CGM and CSII users. Manifestations suggested skin irritation rather than allergies. These reactions rarely led to the definitive discontinuation of the use of the device.

Safety and user experience with off-label use of a flash glucose monitor (FreeStyle Libre® 1) among very young children with type 1 diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVES

FreeStyle Libre 1 (FGM) has been approved by the FDA for children older than 4 years. It enables noninvasive glucose monitoring without the need for finger pricking. Parents of very young children often use the device off-label. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the safety of and user experience with FreeStyle Libre^® 1 and determine its impact on sleep and glycemic control.

METHODS

This was an ambi-directional cohort study. We recruited parents of very young children with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) who were less than 5 years old when they started using FGM at the King Saud University Diabetes Center. The parents filled out a survey evaluating their experience with the system. In addition, the glucose metrics of the children were also obtained from the Libre View system.

RESULTS

We included 31 children with mean age of the children when they started using FGM was 3.88 ± 1.10 years (range, 1.46-5.4 years), and the mean sensor use was 2.3 ± 1.3 years. During the use of the device, the parents had increased sleep duration of 0.71 h (p-value=0.04), had earlier bedtime by 2.8 h (p-value=0.04), and were able to sleep in a separate room from their children. In addition, the time in range improved by 9.9%, the time above range decreased by 8.8%, and the HbA_1c level reduced by 1.56%.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety profile of FGM used for very young children with T1DM is the same for older children, which leads to improved metabolic control and sleep quality of both the parent and the child.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Automated insulin delivery: benefits, challenges, and recommendations. A Consensus Report of the Joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association

A technological solution for the management of diabetes in people who require intensive insulin therapy has been sought for decades. The last 10 years have seen substantial growth in devices that can be integrated into clinical care. Driven by the availability of reliable systems for continuous glucose monitoring, we have entered an era in which insulin delivery through insulin pumps can be modulated based on sensor glucose data. Over the past few years, regulatory approval of the first automated insulin delivery (AID) systems has been granted, and these systems have been adopted into clinical care. Additionally, a community of people living with type 1 diabetes has created its own systems using a do-it-yourself approach by using products commercialised for independent use. With several AID systems in development, some of which are anticipated to be granted regulatory approval in the near future, the joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association has created this consensus report. We provide a review of the current landscape of AID systems, with a particular focus on their safety. We conclude with a series of recommended targeted actions. This is the fourth in a series of reports issued by this working group. The working group was jointly commissioned by the executives of both organisations to write the first statement on insulin pumps, which was published in 2015. The original authoring group was comprised by three nominated members of the American Diabetes Association and three nominated members of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Additional authors have been added to the group to increase diversity and range of expertise. Each organisation has provided a similar internal review process for each manuscript prior to submission for editorial review by the two journals. Harmonisation of editorial and substantial modifications has occurred at both levels. The members of the group have selected the subject of each statement and submitted the selection to both organisations for confirmation.

Automated Insulin Delivery: Benefits, Challenges, and Recommendations. A Consensus Report of the Joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association

A technological solution for the management of diabetes in people who require intensive insulin therapy has been sought for decades. The last 10 years have seen substantial growth in devices that can be integrated into clinical care. Driven by the availability of reliable systems for continuous glucose monitoring, we have entered an era in which insulin delivery through insulin pumps can be modulated based on sensor glucose data. Over the past few years, regulatory approval of the first automated insulin delivery (AID) systems has been granted, and these systems have been adopted into clinical care. Additionally, a community of people living with type 1 diabetes has created its own systems using a do-it-yourself approach by using products commercialized for independent use. With several AID systems in development, some of which are anticipated to be granted regulatory approval in the near future, the joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association has created this consensus report. We provide a review of the current landscape of AID systems, with a particular focus on their safety. We conclude with a series of recommended targeted actions. This is the fourth in a series of reports issued by this working group. The working group was jointly commissioned by the executives of both organizations to write the first statement on insulin pumps, which was published in 2015. The original authoring group was comprised by three nominated members of the American Diabetes Association and three nominated members of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Additional authors have been added to the group to increase diversity and range of expertise. Each organization has provided a similar internal review process for each manuscript prior to submission for editorial review by the two journals. Harmonization of editorial and substantial modifications has occurred at both levels. The members of the group have selected the subject of each statement and submitted the selection to both organizations for confirmation.

The Impact of Insulin-Induced Lipodystrophy on Glycemic Variability in Pediatric Patients with Type 1 Diabetes

Lipodystrophy is the most common dermatological complication in patients with diabetes on insulin therapy. Despite the high frequency of lipodystrophy, there are still several difficulties in giving advice about avoidance into practice among children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers. This cross-sectional study aims to evaluate the prevalence of insulin-induced lipodystrophy in a cohort of pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes, to identify associated clinical factors and to assess its influence on glycemic control. Two hundred and twelve patients attending our Diabetes Center during a three-month period were enrolled. The presence of lipodystrophy was assessed by inspection and palpation procedures. Demographic and clinical data including type of treatment, frequency of rotation of insulin administration sites, and glucose metrics of the previous 30 days were assessed and statistically analyzed. Prevalence of lipohypertrophy was 44.3%. Two patients were affected by lipoatrophy (0.9%). Improper rotation of insulin administration sites and low awareness on lipodystrophy were associated to the occurrence of this skin condition (p = 0.050 and p = 0.005, respectively). When comparing patients with and without lipodystrophy, a significant difference in glycemic variability parameters was detected (p = 0.036 for coefficient of variation, p = 0.029 for standard deviation score of glucose levels). Lipodystrophy still represents a common complication in patients on insulin therapy. The present study reveals its negative impact on glycemic variability. This finding emphasizes the importance of prevention strategies to minimize the occurrence of this dermatological complication that may interfere with clinical history of the disease.

Contact dermatitis in children caused by diabetes devices

BACKGROUND

Insulin pump and glucose monitoring devices improve diabetes mellitus (DM) control and enhance patients' quality of life. However, a growing number of adverse cutaneous reactions related to the use of these devices has been reported.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the culprits of localized contact dermatitis in pediatric patients with diabetes caused by insulin pump and glucose monitoring devices.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 15 pediatric patients patch tested as part of a clinical investigation for skin reactions associated with insulin pump and glucose monitoring devices RESULTS: Seven patients had positive patch test reactions to isobornyl acrylate (IBOA) and five had positive reactions to benzoyl peroxide (BP). Positive patch test reactions to materials from the glucose sensor and/or insulin pump were seen in 10 of the 15 patients. Three had positive reactions to adhesive remover wipe from Smith and Nephew Remove and four had reactions to EMLA plaster.

CONCLUSION

A high share of patients showed positive reactions to IBOA and/or their medical devices (insulin pumps or glucose devices). A third of patients showed positive reactions to benzoyl peroxide. The presence of additional unidentified allergens cannot be excluded, highlighting the importance of access to a full description of the chemical composition of the devices. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

What We Have Learned–Milestones in Pediatric Contact Dermatitis

Purpose of Review

This review highlights recent developments in the field of pediatric allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and patch testing. We will review updates on the pathophysiology of contact dermatitis, discuss new contact allergens, explore the impact of dupilumab on patch testing, and provide pearls for the diagnosis and management of ACD in children.

Recent Findings

ACD is not a single immunologic phenomenon but rather has contributions from multiple inflammatory pathways. Emerging contact allergens include ingredients found in “slime” toys, glucose monitors and insulin pumps, and electronic equipment. Data thus far suggests that patch testing results are generally reliable in the face of concurrent dupilumab use.

Summary

ACD is likely underrecognized and underdiagnosed in pediatric patients, including infants and young children. Providers should keep patient-specific factors and emerging trends in mind when addressing suspected ACD, consider contact dermatitis when they encounter challenging cases of atypical, refractory, or chronic dermatitis, and feel comfortable performing patch testing in children.

Allergic Contact Dermatitis, an Important Skin Reaction in Diabetes Device Users: A Systematic Review

ABSTRACT

Diabetes management has undergone many advances over the years, including the introduction of devices that allow patients to monitor blood glucose and administer insulin. Although these devices have improved patients' quality of life, they are associated with adverse reactions.A systematic literature search was performed up to May 2020 in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases, with no temporal restrictions. Articles were screened by title, abstract, and full text as needed. A manual search among the references of the included articles was also performed.Two hundred sixty-five articles were identified, and 50 studies met inclusion criteria. Several cases of allergic contact dermatitis due to the use of insulin infusion systems and blood glucose monitoring have been reported. Acrylates, methacrylates, and colophonium, as well as, in particular, isobornyl acrylate, represent the main allergens responsible.Skin reactions, in particular allergic contact dermatitis, are a very common adverse event caused by insulin pumps and glucose sensors, which may lead to discontinue the usage of these devices with serious consequences for the patients. Collaboration between specialists, specifically between dermatologists and diabetologists, with patients and manufacturers is essential for the correct management of diabetes devices and potential related skin reactions.

Technologies for Type 1 Diabetes and Contact Dermatitis: Therapeutic Tools and Clinical Outcomes in a Cohort of Pediatric Patients

The increasing use of technological devices for the management of diabetes is related to the prolonged exposure of patients' skin to chemical and mechanical agents and, consequently, to the increased risk of developing dermatological complications. Among these, contact dermatitis is the most insidious skin disorder. Despite the magnitude of the issue, no universally accepted recommendations on the management of this common complication are currently available. Our observational study aimed to describe all the solutions adopted by patients and their caregivers to treat and prevent the appearance of contact dermatitis and to describe the clinical impact of this cutaneous complication. Twenty-one pediatric patients (mean age 12.1 ± 3.7 years) with type 1 diabetes were recruited in the study. The most common treatment used to treat acute skin lesions was the application of topical corticosteroids, sometimes associated with topical antibiotics (9.5%). In order to prevent the further appearance of dermatitis, the most frequently adopted measure was the use of hydrocolloid and/or silicone-based adhesives, followed by the application of protective barrier films. One patient reported benefit from the off-label use of fluticasone propionate nasal spray. However, only 52.4% of the study participants achieved a definitive resolution of the skin issue, and 38.1% of patients were forced to discontinue insulin pump therapy and/or continuous glucose monitoring. No differences were observed in glycated hemoglobin values between the period before and after the onset of contact dermatitis. Our study confirms the severity of this dermatological complication that may hinder the spread of new technologies for the management of diabetes. Finally, our findings highlight the importance of establishing close collaboration both with pediatric allergy specialists to prescribe the most suitable treatment and with manufacturing companies to ensure that adhesives of technological devices are free of harmful well-known sensitizers.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Skin Involvement in Paediatric Patients with Type 1 Diabetes

Skin involvement is an overlooked aspect in the management of paediatric patients with type 1 diabetes. A comprehensive search of published literature using the PubMed database was carried out using the following key terms: "children," "pediatric/paediatric patients," "skin," "skin disorders," "type 1 diabetes." Dermatological side effects are frequently observed among diabetic children and adolescents. Insulin-induced lipodystrophies and allergic contact dermatitis caused by insulin pumps or glycaemic sensors are the most common skin reactions in these patients. Furthermore, several diabetes-associated skin diseases such as necrobiosis lipoidica, granuloma annulare, vitiligo, and bullosis diabeticorum may already be present in paediatric patients. Paediatric diabetes specialists should pay attention to their patients' skin to recognize these disorders, identify the potential causes, and choose the most suitable treatment. Finally, the evaluation of skin concentrations of advanced glycation end-products using non-invasive diagnostic techniques may be used to assess the risk of chronic complications of diabetes as early as adolescence.

High Frequency of Dermatological Complications in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: A Web-Based Survey

INTRODUCTION

Despite advances in the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D), there is an increasing incidence of skin reactions related to diabetes devices such as patch pumps and glucose sensors. Aim of the present study was to assess the prevalence of dermatological complications in pediatric patients with T1D using technological devices.

METHODS

Online survey regarding skin reactions related to the use of patch pumps and/or glucose sensors was administered to families of children and adolescents (0-17 years) with T1D. Data were collected on demographic characteristics, duration of diabetes, and clinical features of dermatological complications if present.

RESULTS

Our study population consisted of 139 patients (female 51.8%) aged 11.1 ± 3.3 years. More than half (51.1%) experienced skin reactions due to patch pumps or glucose sensors. Dermatological complications were mainly caused by continuous glucose monitoring (56.3% of total). Timing of appearance of dermatological reactions varied from a few days to several months after the introduction of the device. The application of hypoallergenic barrier bandages was the most frequently adopted measure to solve the issue.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirmed high frequency of dermatological complications among pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes. Well-designed studies are awaited to provide clear recommendations to minimize the burden of skin issues related to technological devices.

Efficacy of advanced hybrid closed loop systems for the management of type 1 diabetes in children

Over the last years significant advances have been achieved in the development of technologies for diabetes management. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), predictive low glucose management (PLGM), hybrid closed loop (HCL) and advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) systems allow better diabetes management, thus reducing the burden of the disease and the risk of chronic complications. This review summarizes the main characteristics of the currently available HCL and AHCL systems and their primary effects in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D). The findings of trials assessing the glucose control (time in range, HbA1c values, hypoglycemic events), the health-related quality of life and the existing limits of the use of these technologies are reported. The most recent data clearly confirm the ability of the HCL and AHCL insulin delivery systems to safely achieve a significant improvement of glucose control and quality of life in the pediatric population with T1D. Further studies are underway to overcame current barriers and future improvements in the usability of these technologies are awaited to facilitate their use in the routine clinical practice. The HCL and AHCL algorithms are the key features of today's insulin delivery systems that mark a crucial step towards fully automated closed loop systems.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.