935-P: Personality Traits and Glycemic Control in Type 1 Diabetic Patients with Different Insulin Therapies

Introduction and Objective: Glycemic variability is becoming increasingly important in evaluating effectiveness of treatment in patients with type 1 diabetes. Personality traits may impact daily therapeutic decisions, potentially affecting quality of glycemic control. This study aimed to explore potential relationship between personality traits and glycemic control, and to examine differences across various insulin therapies. Methods: Cross-sectional observational study, 130 type 1 diabetic patients (68 females, 62 males, 43.77±12.81 years, BMI 24.95±4.57 kg/m2, disease duration 23.23±12.39 years, HbA1c 7.04±0.92%), divided in three groups: 1. Multiple daily injections (MDI, n=45); 2. Traditional pumps (TP, n=35); 3. Advanced hybrid closed-loop systems (AHCL, n=50). Personality was assessed through the Personality Inventory for DSM-V questionnaire. Kruskal-Wallis test for independent samples was used to compare continuous variables among three groups. Associations between pairs of variables were analyzed using Spearman’s correlation. Results: AHCL group showed higher emotional lability (p=0.042), perseveration (p=0.005), separation insecurity (p=0.007) and distractibility (p=0.021) than MDI and TP group. The pathological trait of emotional lability (above the 75th percentile) was more frequently present in the AHCL (32%, p=0.029) than MDI and TP group. This trait was associated with an increase in TAR>180 (p=0.035) and GMI (p=0.025), a decrease in TBR<70 (p=0.014). However, glycemic control and metrics were significantly better in the AHCL than MDI and TP group (HbA1c, p=0.03; GRI, p<0.001; TIR, p=0.004; TAR>180, p=0.05; TBR<70, p=0.018, TAR>250, p=0.041; CV, p=0.012; SD, p=0.01). Conclusion: AHCL systems may help mitigating the impact of problematic personality traits, that could interfere achieving an optimal glycemic control. Disclosure E. Resmini: None. A.V. Cornaghi: None. V. Turra: None. E. Zarra: None. E. Cimino: Speaker's Bureau; roche, Abbott. M. Sandri: None. M. Migazzi: None. G. Massari: None. B. Pasquino: None. C. Mascadri: None. S. Madaschi: None. A. Girelli: Consultant; Abbott Diagnostics, Sanofi, Roche Diabetes Care.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Diabetes
Published
2025-06-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2337/db25-935-p
Primary Topic
Diabetes Management and Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

935-P: Personality Traits and Glycemic Control in Type 1 Diabetic Patients with Different Insulin Therapies

Sara Madaschi, Giulia Massari, Matteo Migazzi, Eugenia Resmini et al.
Diabetes
Diabetes Management and Research
article

935-P: Personality Traits and Glycemic Control in Type 1 Diabetic Patients with Different Insulin Therapies

Sara Madaschi, Giulia Massari, Matteo Migazzi, Eugenia Resmini, Elena Cimino, Marco Sandri, Cristina Mascadri, Bernadetta Pasquino, Emanuela Zarra, Valentina Turra, Angela Girelli, ANGELO V. CORNAGHI
article en

Abstract

Introduction and Objective: Glycemic variability is becoming increasingly important in evaluating effectiveness of treatment in patients with type 1 diabetes. Personality traits may impact daily therapeutic decisions, potentially affecting quality of glycemic control. This study aimed to explore potential relationship between personality traits and glycemic control, and to examine differences across various insulin therapies. Methods: Cross-sectional observational study, 130 type 1 diabetic patients (68 females, 62 males, 43.77±12.81 years, BMI 24.95±4.57 kg/m2, disease duration 23.23±12.39 years, HbA1c 7.04±0.92%), divided in three groups: 1. Multiple daily injections (MDI, n=45); 2. Traditional pumps (TP, n=35); 3. Advanced hybrid closed-loop systems (AHCL, n=50). Personality was assessed through the Personality Inventory for DSM-V questionnaire. Kruskal-Wallis test for independent samples was used to compare continuous variables among three groups. Associations between pairs of variables were analyzed using Spearman’s correlation. Results: AHCL group showed higher emotional lability (p=0.042), perseveration (p=0.005), separation insecurity (p=0.007) and distractibility (p=0.021) than MDI and TP group. The pathological trait of emotional lability (above the 75th percentile) was more frequently present in the AHCL (32%, p=0.029) than MDI and TP group. This trait was associated with an increase in TAR>180 (p=0.035) and GMI (p=0.025), a decrease in TBR<70 (p=0.014). However, glycemic control and metrics were significantly better in the AHCL than MDI and TP group (HbA1c, p=0.03; GRI, p<0.001; TIR, p=0.004; TAR>180, p=0.05; TBR<70, p=0.018, TAR>250, p=0.041; CV, p=0.012; SD, p=0.01). Conclusion: AHCL systems may help mitigating the impact of problematic personality traits, that could interfere achieving an optimal glycemic control. Disclosure E. Resmini: None. A.V. Cornaghi: None. V. Turra: None. E. Zarra: None. E. Cimino: Speaker's Bureau; roche, Abbott. M. Sandri: None. M. Migazzi: None. G. Massari: None. B. Pasquino: None. C. Mascadri: None. S. Madaschi: None. A. Girelli: Consultant; Abbott Diagnostics, Sanofi, Roche Diabetes Care.

DiabetesVol. 74(Supplement_1)
Openalex Percentile: Top 81%
Diabetes Management and Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.