Purpose: Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is the most common type of diabetes in children, but the frequency of type 2 diabetes (T2D) is increasing rapidly. Classification of diabetes is based on a constellation of features that vary by type. We aimed to compare demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics at diagnosis of pediatric T1D and T2D. Methods: We studied children who visited a large academic hospital in Houston, Texas (USA) with a new diagnosis of T2D (n=753) or T1D (n=758). We compared age, sex, race/ethnicity, presence of obesity, glucose, hemoglobin A1c, islet autoantibody positivity, C-peptide, and presence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) at diabetes diagnosis. Results: At diagnosis, children with T2D, compared with those with T1D, were older (13.6 years vs. 9.7 years), more likely female (63.2% vs. 47.8%), of racial/ethnic minority (91.1% vs. 42.3%), and obese (90.9% vs. 19.4%) and were less likely to have DKA (7.8% vs. 35.0%) and diabetes autoantibodies (5.5% vs. 95.4%). Children with T2D also had significantly lower glucose, lower hemoglobin A1c and lower C-peptide level (all comparisons, p<0.0001). In multiple logistic regression analysis, older age, racial/ethnic minority, obesity, higher C-peptide, and negative islet autoantibodies were independently associated with T2D (all, p<0.05), while sex, glucose, hemoglobin A1c, and DKA were not (model p<0.0001). Conclusion There are important demographic, clinical, and laboratory differences between T1D and T2D in children. However, none of the characteristics were unique to either diabetes type, which poses challenges to diabetes classification at diagnosis.

Background: While multidimensional and interdisciplinary assessment of older adult patients improves their short-term outcomes after evaluation in the emergency department (ED), this assessment is time-consuming and ill-suited for the busy environment. Thus, identifying patients who will benefit from this strategy is challenging. Therefore, this study aimed to identify older adult patients suitable for a different ED approach as well as independent variables associated with poor short-term clinical outcomes. Methods: We included all patients ≥65 years attending 52 EDs in Spain over 7 days. Sociodemographic, comorbidity, and baseline functional status data were collected. The outcomes were 30-day mortality, re-presentation, hospital readmission, and the composite of all outcomes. Results: During the study among 96,014 patients evaluated in the ED, we included 23,338 patients ≥65 years—mean age, 78.4±8.1 years; 12,626 (54.1%) women. During follow-up, 5,776 patients (24.75%) had poor outcomes after evaluation in the ED: 1,140 (4.88%) died, 4,640 (20.51) returned to the ED, and 1,739 (7.69%) were readmitted 30 days after discharge following the index visit. A model including male sex, age ≥75 years, arrival by ambulance, Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥3, and functional impairment had a C-index of 0.81 (95% confidence interval, 0.80–0.82) for 30-day mortality. Conclusion Male sex, age ≥75 years, arrival by ambulance, functional impairment, or severe comorbidity are features of patients who could benefit from approaches in the ED different from the common triage to improve the poor short-term outcomes of this population.