Outcomes in youth-onset type 2 diabetes during the transition period: glycemic control, microvascular complications, and effects of second-line agents

Jeesun Yoo; Yun Jeong Lee; Choong Ho Shin; Young Ah Lee

doi:10.6065/apem.2550068.034

Ann Pediatr Endocrinol Metab > Volume 31(1); 2026 > Article

Yoo, Lee, Shin, and Lee: Outcomes in youth-onset type 2 diabetes during the transition period: glycemic control, microvascular complications, and effects of second-line agents

Original Article

Annals of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism 2026;31(1): 45-54.

Published online: February 28, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.6065/apem.2550068.034

Outcomes in youth-onset type 2 diabetes during the transition period: glycemic control, microvascular complications, and effects of second-line agents

Jeesun Yoo¹

, Yun Jeong Lee¹

, Choong Ho Shin^1,²

, Young Ah Lee^1,²

¹Department of Pediatrics, Seoul National University Children's Hospital, Seoul, Korea

²Department of Pediatrics, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Address for correspondence: Young Ah Lee Department of Pediatrics, Seoul National University Children’s Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03080, Korea Email: nina337@snu.ac.kr

Received February 23, 2025 Revised April 2, 2025 Accepted April 25, 2025

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

Despite the global paradigm emphasizing earlier and more aggressive intervention for youth-onset type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), metformin and insulin are the only drugs approved for Korean adolescents. We investigated the incidence of complications, changes in glycemic control during the transition period, the effect of second-line antidiabetic agents on glycemic control in young adults with youth-onset T2DM.

Methods

Eighty-four patients diagnosed with T2DM at Seoul National University Children's Hospital between January 2001 and July 2023, before age 18 (47 males; mean age, 14 years) with available glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) data from at least 2 distinct ages between 19 and 22 years old were retrospectively enrolled.

Results

At the last follow-up (mean age, 24.9 years; median follow-up, 9.6 years), complications were found in 33.7% (nephropathy, 25.3%; eye disease, 20.6%), and 83% required insulin or second-line agents. During the transition period, HbA1c levels decreased from 8.2% at age 19 to 7.7% at age 22 (P<0.01), with greater improvements in females, those diagnosed before age 15, and those with HbA1c levels ≥7% at age 19. HbA1c level decreased significantly at 1 year after the addition of second-line medications (P=0.03) and at the last visit (P=0.03) compared with baseline.

Conclusions

Glycemic control improved during the transition period among youth-onset T2DM patients. Given the high incidence of complications and the beneficial effects of second-line agents on glycemic control, there is an urgent need to expand the range of approved second-line agents, along with broader insurance coverage in adolescence.

Keywords: Type 2 diabetes mellitus, Adolescent, Diabetes complications, Hypoglycemic agents, Transition to adult care

Highlights

· Over one third of young adults with youth-onset type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) developed microvascular complications by early adulthood, and the majority required insulin or second-line agents during follow-up.

· Glycemic control improved during the transition from late adolescence to young adulthood, with greater benefits observed in females, those diagnosed at a younger age, and those with suboptimal glycemic control at start of the transition.

· The addition of second-line antidiabetic agents was associated with improvements in glycated hemoglobin, supporting the need to broaden approved therapeutic options and insurance coverage for adolescents with youth-onset T2DM in Korea.

Introduction

Youth-onset type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has a greater burden of complications and comorbidities than adult-onset T2DM, with more rapid progression of complications [1]. Moreover, the annual decline in pancreatic beta-cell function in youth-onset T2DM has been reported to occur approximately twice as rapidly as in adult-onset T2DM [2,3], highlighting the need for earlier and more aggressive therapeutic intervention in early phase of T2DM.

The prevalence of youth-onset T2DM has exhibited a marked increase in recent years, possibly due to lifestyle changes and the increasing rate of obesity [4-6]. Data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study revealed an annual percentage change in T2DM incidence of 5.31% from 2002 to 2018 [4]. In South Korea, the prevalence of T2DM in pediatric populations has also increased more than four-fold since the early 2000s [7]. Considering the high severity and rapid progression of youth-onset T2DM, the treatment paradigm has been reevaluated and updated through pediatric clinical trials of drugs approved for adults. The International Society for Pediatric and Adolescents Diabetes [8] and the American Diabetes Association [9] have recently approved the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (e.g., liraglutide, dulaglutide) or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (e.g., empagliflozin, dapagliflozin) as a secondary treatment option for pediatric patients with T2DM aged 10 years and older, based on pediatric randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating the efficacy and safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists including liraglutide, dulaglutide, and exenatide [10-12], and SGLT2 inhibitors including dapagliflozin and empagliflozin [13,14]. Despite this change in the global treatment paradigm, metformin and insulin are still the only approved drugs in Korean adolescents with T2DM to date.

In this study, we investigated the prevalence of diabetic nephropathy and retinopathy during the transition period between age of 19 and 22 years in patients with youth-onset T2DM. Next, we evaluated trends in glycemic control during this transition period. Lastly, we analyzed the impact of adjunctive second-line antidiabetic agents on glycemic outcomes.

Materials and methods

1. Patient identification and data collection

Among 319 patients who were diagnosed with T2DM at <18 years of age and followed for >1 year at Seoul National University Children’s Hospital between January 2001 and July 2023, 282 patients were retrospectively reviewed. Among 174 patients who reached the age of 20, 84 patients who had available glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) data from at least 2 distinct ages between 19 to 22 years old were finally enrolled (Fig. 1).

Age, height, weight, body mass index (BMI) and HbA1c data at each time point (at diagnosis, at the last visit during the transition period between the ages 19 to 22, and at the last follow-up visit) were collected. Duration of diabetes, history of antidiabetic medication, and the presence of microvascular complications including nephropathy or eye disease were evaluated. Obesity was defined as a BMI z-score ≥95th percentile for age and sex (<18 years of age) and a BMI absolute value ≥25 kg/m² (≥18 years of age). Medication use was defined as cases prescribed within 6 months at each time point, and documented records of continuous use for at least 3 months. Treatment was classified into metformin monotherapy, insulin monotherapy, metformin and insulin therapy, and addition of second-line agents (sulfonylurea, thiazolidinedione, GLP-1 receptor agonist, SGLT2 inhibitors, etc.).

Microalbuminuria (stage 3) was defined as a urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) ≥30 mg/g in at least 2 out of 3 determinations within a 6-month period, or 3 or more consecutive ACR values ≥30 mg/g irrespective of the time interval between measurements. Macroalbuminuria (stage 4) was similarly defined, using an ACR threshold of ≥300 mg/g. Cases in which proteinuria or albuminuria was presumed to be caused by other underlying renal disorders (such as IgA nephropathy, acute tubulointerstitial nephritis, etc.) were excluded from the prevalence count of nephropathy. Nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy, proliferative diabetic retinopathy, macular edema, vitreous hemorrhage, and cataract were included as diabetic eye diseases. The determination of diabetic eye diseases was based on medical record documentation by an ophthalmologist.

2. Statistical analysis

All continuous variables were tested for normality and described as mean±standard deviation or median with interquartile range (IQR). Paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare continuous variables and chi-square test to compare categorical variables between the 2 groups. McNemar test was used to analyze changes in proportions of categorical variables in repeated measurements. Approximately 60% of patients had their HbA1c measured more than 3 times per year (Supplementary Table 1), and 46.4% of the patients were followed every year, with data available for 4 distinct ages from 19 to 22 (Supplementary Table 2). We calculated the median HbA1c for each patient at each age and then derived the mean HbA1c across all patients within each age group. These values were used to assess changes in HbA1c by age. A linear mixed model (LMM) was employed to examine trends in HbA1c changes with age during the transition period. Fixed effects included age categories and sex, age at diagnosis category (less or more than 15 years of age), HbA1c category at age 19 (less or more than 7% of HbA1c), while random effects accounted for individual variability. Interaction effects between factors and time were evaluated, and if the interaction term had a P-value <0.1, separate analyses were performed for both subgroups within each factor. Statistical significance was indicated by a 2-sided P-value less than 0.05. Statistical analyses were performed using R ver. 4.4.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Austria)

3. Ethical statement

This retrospective chart review study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Seoul National University Hospital (approval number: 2312-088-1491). The requirement for informed consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study and the use of anonymized patient data. All procedures were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Results

1. Patient characteristics and treatment regimen

Table 1 described the clinical characteristics of 84 patients (47 males and 37 females) at each time point. At diagnosis, mean age was 14.0±2.1 years. The median diabetes duration at the last follow-up visit was 9.6 (IQR, 6.5–14.6) years. Mean HbA1c level was 10.5% at initial diagnosis, 7.9% at the last visit during the transition period (mean, 21.5 years), and 8.1% at last follow-up (mean, 24.9 years).

Treatment regimen at each time point is presented in Table 1. At diagnosis, 3 patients (4%) managed diabetes by lifestyle modification, and 32 patients (38%) were treated with metformin monotherapy, 15 (18%) with insulin monotherapy, and 27 (32%) with metformin and insulin combination therapy. The proportion of patients treated with metformin monotherapy decreased to 15% at the last visit during the transition period, and to 12% at the last follow-up visit. Moreover, 46 patients (57%) were dependent on insulin therapy at the last follow-up. The proportion of patient utilizing second-line agents increased markedly from 8% at diagnosis to 59% at the last follow-up (Table 1).

2. Diabetic microvascular complications at each time point

The prevalence of microvascular complications increased from 2% at initial presentation to 33.7% at the last follow-up visit (Table 1). The prevalence of diabetic nephropathy increased from 2.4% at diagnosis, to 15.7% during transition period, and to 25.3% at the last follow-up. Regarding diabetic retinopathy, there were no cases at diagnosis, but the prevalence was 7.4% during the transition period, and increased to 20.6% at the last follow-up.

3. Change in glycemic control during the transition period

Fig. 2A shows HbA1c trajectory during the transition period between age 19 and 22. In overall study subjects, mean HbA1c levels showed a decreasing trend with age from 8.2% at age 19 to 7.7% at age 22 (P=0.007). Next, change in HbA1c category (<7%, ≥7%–<9%, and ≥9%) was evaluated (Fig. 2B). A decreased proportion in the ≥9% category (from 37% at age 19 to 25.6% at age 22) and increased proportion in the <7% category (from 37% at age 19 to 51.2% age 22) was found, although these changes were not significant.

Fig. 3 exhibits the results of LMM analysis. Females (P=0.049 vs. males), patients diagnosed before age 15 (P=0.001 vs. after age 15), and those with HbA1c ≥7% at age 19 (P<0.001 vs. <7%) had significantly higher HbA1c levels during the transition period. Significant interactions were observed for age with sex (P=0.04), age at diagnosis category (P=0.09), and HbA1c category at age 19 (P<0.001). Females (P=0.002), patients diagnosed before age 15 (P=0.002), and those with HbA1c ≥7% at age 19 (P<0.001) showed a significant decrease in HbA1c levels during the transition period, while their respective counterparts—males, those diagnosed at or after age 15, and individuals with HbA1c <7% at age 19—did not exhibit significant decreases.

4. Glycemic control after adding second-line antidiabetic medication

Fig. 4 shows mean HbA1c levels (Fig. 4A) and HbA1c category (Fig. 4B) at each time points. Mean HbA1c levels significantly decreased from 9.3% at baseline to 8.5% at 1 year after addition of second-line medication (P=0.03 vs. baseline), and to 8.1% at the last follow-up (P=0.03 vs. baseline, Fig. 4A). The proportion of patients in the <7% category significantly increased from 13.6% at baseline to 28.8% at 1 year after the addition of second-line drugs (P=0.04 vs. baseline), and to 35.6% at the last follow-up (P=0.006 vs. baseline) (Fig. 4B). The proportion of patients in the ≥9% category decreased from 59.3% at baseline to 45.8% at 1 year after addition of second-line medication without significance (P=0.12 vs. baseline), but significantly decreased to 33.9% at the last follow-up (P=0.005 vs. baseline).

Fig. 5A presents a pie chart of the proportion of patients who initiated any second-line agent during the follow-up period, as well as the distribution of initially prescribed second-line agents (by class). Of the 84 patients included in the study, second-line antidiabetic medications were prescribed to 59 (70.2%). The most frequently prescribed second-line agent was sulfonylureas (29%), followed by dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (26%), and GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors at 5% each. Fig. 5B and C demonstrate the distribution of initially prescribed second-line agents before and after May 2016, respectively. Prior to this time point, sulfonylureas predominated, accounting for 75% of second-line agent selections, with DPP-4 inhibitors comprising the majority of the remainder. Post-May 2016, greater diversity in agent selection was observed. DPP-4 inhibitors appears to be the most frequently selected second-line agent, followed by SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and sulfonylureas, each accounting for approximately 10% or more of all initial prescriptions.

Discussion

In patients with youth-onset T2DM, diabetic microvascular complications were identified in 20% during the transition period, and this increased to more than 33% at the last follow-up visit. Mean HbA1c levels significantly improved during the transition period. In particular, females, patients diagnosed before age 15, and those with HbA1c levels of 7% or higher at age 19 exhibited significant downward trajectories in HbA1c during the transition period. Addition of second-line agents has been shown to improve glycemic control. Second-line options have also expanded according to changes in domestic insurance coverage.

In our study of subjects with a median diabetes duration of 9.6 years, one-third of patients developed one or more microvascular complications, including nephropathy in 25% and diabetic eye diseases in 20%. This high occurrence of complications within a few years of T2DM diagnosis is similar to another report of the high incidence of complications within a similar period in the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) study [15]. A higher odds ratio for predicting microalbuminuria, retinopathy, and neuropathy has been reported in patients with youth-onset T2DM compared to those with T1D [16-19]. Furthermore, a higher incidence of diabetic complications and more rapid disease progression have been reported in youth-onset T2DM compared to adult-onset T2DM [20]. Research from the TODAY study showed that the prevalence of elevated urine albumin excretion increased from 6.3% to 16.6% over 3.9 years of follow-up and to 18% at 5-year follow-up in youth with T2DM [21,22]. Rates of diabetic kidney disease progression are more rapid in youth-onset T2DM than adult-onset T2DM, likely driven by early metabolic programming and pubertal physiological changes that exacerbate renal energy imbalance and hypoxia [23]. Considering the higher incidence of diabetic complications in youth-onset T2DM and their aggressive clinical course [24], early intensive intervention is required.

Glycemic control in patients with adolescent-onset T2DM tended to improve between 19 and 22 years of age. There has been a paucity of research investigating the trajectory of glycemic control in patients with youth-onset T2DM, in their transition to adulthood. Improvement of insulin resistance at the end of puberty may be contributing factors to glycemic improvement [25]. The nadir of insulin sensitivity occurs around Tanner stage III, with a subsequent recovery to prepubertal levels by Tanner stage V [26,27]. In addition, the increase in self-efficacy, relief of emotional distress, and independence in adulthood could positively affect a patient’s ability to manage diabetes [28]. Meanwhile, according to the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study [29], young adults with youth-onset T2DM often exhibit worsening glycemic control and loss to follow-up during the transfer from pediatric to adult care, highlighting need for a tailored clinical program to support them. Physiological and behavioral shifts may contribute to the glycemic improvement in transition-aged patients with T2DM. Further prospective studies are needed to identify predictors affecting glycemic control during the transition period and incorporate them in clinical programs.

In particular, a significant decrease in HbA1c level was found in females, patients diagnosed before age 15, and those with poor glycemic control (≥7% of HbA1c) at age 19. These 3 groups all exhibited worse glycemic control during the transition period compared to their counterparts (males, patients diagnosed after age 15, and those with good glycemic control at age 19). The association of female sex and longer disease duration with poor glycemic control has been reported in pediatric and adult patients with T2DM [30,31]. In addition, those with poor glycemic control at the age of 19 may be prescribed a second-line antidiabetic medication. In this study, the addition of second-line agents during the transition period improved glycemic control at the 1-year follow-up and at the last follow-up. Policy improvements for adolescents with T2DM are needed to allow the initiation of prescriptions for second-line antidiabetic medications during adolescence.

In our study subjects, sulfonylureas and DPP-4 inhibitors were the most frequently prescribed second-line medications. With the Korean reimbursement approval of 2 agents for adult patients in May 2016—empagliflozin (Jardiance), an SGLT2 inhibitor, and dulaglutide (Trulicity), a GLP-1 receptor agonist—there was a decrease in the frequency of sulfonylurea prescriptions, and an increase in the utilization of DPP-4 inhibitors. Also, the use of SGLT2 inhibitors, and GLP-1 receptor agonists has increased since May 2016. This reflects how reimbursement policies for specific medications influence clinical practice in South Korea, potentially impacting glycemic outcomes.

Sulfonylurea stimulates insulin secretion by binding to the SUR subunit of the ATP-sensitive potassium channel and inducing channel closure in pancreatic beta cells [32]. While data on the use of sulfonylureas in youth-onset T2DM are limited, a randomized, single-blind comparative study of 285 pediatric patients demonstrated significant HbA1c reductions in both the glimepiride and metformin groups [33]. Linagliptin, a DPP-4 inhibitor that enhances the effects of incretin by increasing active GLP-1 levels [32], is well-tolerated and effective in pediatric patients with T2DM [34], but systematic review of 5 RCTs indicated that the efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors in youth-onset T2DM remains unclear [35]. Recent advances in pharmacotherapy research have expanded treatment options for youth-onset T2DM, shifting focus towards GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, rather than sulfonylureas or DPP-4 inhibitors. GLP-1 receptor agonists not only stimulate glucose-dependent insulin secretion and suppress glucagon release, but also delay gastric emptying, and SGLT2 inhibitors reduce hyperglycemia through increased urinary glucose excretion by inhibiting renal glucose reabsorption [32]. These options are approved for pediatric use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and have demonstrated superior glycemic control and safety profiles in RCTs [10-14]. According to a pilot study on the efficacy of dulaglutide, glycemic control was significantly improved during 3 months and 1-year posttreatment in 5 Korean pediatric patients with T2DM, with minimal side effects and good adherence [36]. Based on international guidelines for youth-onset T2DM [8,9], insurance coverage needs to be updated so that FDA- or EMA-approved drugs (GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors) can be prescribed to Korean adolescents.

This study has several limitations. First, it is limited by its retrospective design in a single tertiary center and the lack of information on medication adherence. Second, there is a selection bias, as patients with poor treatment compliance or loss to follow-up due to adverse events were excluded, since our study included subjects who had at least 2 HbA1c measurements across different age groups between 19 and 22 years. Third, risk factors affecting glycemic trends during the transition period could not be determined in detail by a retrospective design. Fourth, glycemic trajectories between patients who received second-line agents and those who did not could not be compared due to variation in drug type and the timing of initiation.

In conclusion, one-third youth-onset T2DM patients in this study experienced microvascular complications in young adulthood. Transition-aged patients showed improved glycemic control, with significant downward HbA1c trajectories in females, patients diagnosed at a younger age, and those with poor glycemic control at age 19. Considering the beneficial effects of second-line antidiabetic agents on glycemic control during the transition period, early introduction of second-line agents in adolescence is expected to improve glycemic control and prevent the development or progression of microvascular complications.

Supplementary materials

Supplementary Tables 1-2 are available at https://doi.org/10.6065/apem.2550068.034.

Supplementary Table 1.

Number of patients according to the frequency of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) measurements by age during transition period

apem-2550068-034-Supplementary-Table.pdf

Supplementary Table 2.

Distribution of patients by number of distinct ages with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) measurements during transition period

apem-2550068-034-Supplementary-Table.pdf

Notes

Conflicts of interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Funding

This study received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study can be provided by the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Author contribution

Conceptualization: JY, YJL, CHS, YAL; Data curation: JY; Formal analysis: JY, YJL; Methodology: YJL, YAL; Project administration: CHS, YAL; Visualization: JY; Writing - original draft: JY; Writing - review & editing: JY, YJL, YAL

Fig. 1.

Flowchart showing inclusion of the subjects. SNUCH, Seoul National University Children’s Hospital; HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin.

Fig. 2.

Glycemic control during the transition period from age 19 to 22. (A) Box-whisker plot showing mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) trajectory during the transition period. The box represents the interquartile range containing the middle 50% of the data, with the median indicated by the horizontal line within the box. The lower and upper whiskers extend to the minimum and maximum values. Blue dots represent the mean values of HbA1c of each age group. (B) 100% stacked bar plot of HbA1c categories during the transition period.

Fig. 3.

Change in glycemic control during the transition period and associated factors. (A) Sex. (B) Age at diagnosis. (C) Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) category at age 19. F, female; M, male.

Fig. 4.

Glycemic control after adding second-line antidiabetic agents. (A) Box-whisker plot showing changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) following the initiation of second-line agents. Each individual patient is represented by a dot at each time point, and changes in their values are shown as a gray line connecting the dots. The asterisk (*) indicates a P-value of less than 0.05. (B) Sankey diagram showing changes in HbA1c categories following the initiation of second-line agents.

Fig. 5.

Treatment regimen and the class of second-line antidiabetic agents. (A) Distribution of overall medication usage and first prescribed second-line agent during the total follow-up period. *‘Other’ category included drugs from the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist and thiazolidinedione classes. (B) First prescribed second-line agent before May 2016 (N=28). (C) First prescribed second-line agents from May 2016 (N=31). *‘Other’ category includes drugs from the GLP-1 receptor agonist and thiazolidinedione classes.

Table 1.

Clinical characteristics and treatment regimens of subjects (N=84)

Characteristic	At diagnosis	At last visit of transition period	At last follow-up visit
Age (yr)	14.0±2.1	21.5±0.9	24.9±5.0
Duration of diabetes (yr)	-	7.3 (5.6–9.0)	9.6 (6.5–14.6)
Body mass index (kg/m²)	25.4±6.1 (n=79)	27.4±5.1 (n=57)	26.7±5.1 (n=55)
Obesity	36/79 (45.6)	38/57 (66.7)	31/55 (56.4)
HbA1c (%)	10.5±2.7	7.9±2.1	8.1±2.4
Microvascular complications	2 (2.4)	16 (19.3)	28 (33.7)
Diabetic nephropathy	2 (2.4)	13 (15.7)	21 (25.3)
Diabetic eye disease	0 (0)	5 (7.4)	14 (20.6)
Treatment regimen
Lifestyle modification only	3 (3.6)	6 (7.1)	4 (4.8)
Metformin only	32 (38.1)	13 (15.5)	10 (11.9)
Metformin + 2nd-line agent	2 (2.4)	18 (21.4)	21 (25.0)
DPP4i	2	-	-
Insulin only	15 (17.9)	11 (13.1)	9 (10.7)
Insulin + metformin	27 (32.1)	13 (15.5)	11 (13.1)
Insulin + metformin + 2nd-line agent	4 (4.8)	21 (25.0)	26 (31.0)
DPP4i	1	-	-
SU	2	-	-
TZD	1	-	-
Insulin + 2nd-line agent	1 (1.2)	0 (0)	2 (2.4)
SU	1	-	-
DPP4i	-	-	1
SU & TZD	-	-	1
2nd-line agent only	0 (0)	2 (2.4)	1 (1.2)
SU	-	-	1

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation, median (interquartile range), or number (%).

Missing values; body mass index (n=5 at diagnosis, n=27 at the last visit of transition period, n=29 at the last follow-up visit), microvascular complications (n=1 for total complications, n=1 for diabetic nephropathy, n=16 for diabetic eye disease).

HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin; DPP4i, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor; SU, sulfonylurea; TZD, thiazolidinedione.

References

1. Barrett T, Jalaludin MY, Turan S, Hafez M, Shehadeh N. Rapid progression of type 2 diabetes and related complications in children and young people-A literature review. Pediatr Diabetes 2020;21:158-72.

2. Bacha F, Gungor N, Lee S, Arslanian SA. Progressive deterioration of β-cell function in obese youth with type 2 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes 2013;14:106-11.

3. Utzschneider KM, Tripputi MT, Kozedub A, Barengolts E, Caprio S, Cree-Green M, et al. Differential loss of β-cell function in youth vs. adults following treatment withdrawal in the Restoring Insulin Secretion (RISE) study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2021;178:108948.

4. Wagenknecht LE, Lawrence JM, Isom S, Jensen ET, Dabelea D, Liese AD, et al. Trends in incidence of youth-onset type 1 and type 2 diabetes in the USA, 2002-18: results from the population-based SEARCH for diabetes in youth study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2023;11:242-50.

5. Perng W, Conway R, Mayer-Davis E, Dabelea D. Youth-onset type 2 diabetes: the epidemiology of an awakening epidemic. Diabetes Care 2023;46:490-9.

6. Xie J, Wang M, Long Z, Ning H, Li J, Cao Y, et al. Global burden of type 2 diabetes in adolescents and young adults, 1990-2019: systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. BMJ 2022;379:e072385.

7. Hong YH, Chung IH, Han K, Chung S. Prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus among Korean children, adolescents, and adults younger than 30 years: changes from 2002 to 2016. Diabetes Metab J 2022;46:297-306.

8. Shah AS, Zeitler PS, Wong J, Pena AS, Wicklow B, Arslanian S, et al. Ispad clinical practice consensus guidelines 2022: type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents. Pediatr Diabetes 2022;23:872-902.

9. ElSayed NA, Aleppo G, Aroda VR, Bannuru RR, Brown FM, Bruemmer D, et al. 14. Children and adolescents: standards of care in diabetes-2023. Diabetes Care 2023;46(Suppl 1):S230-53.

10. Tamborlane WV, Barrientos-Pérez M, Fainberg U, Frimer-Larsen H, Hafez M, Hale PM, et al. Liraglutide in children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2019;381:637-46.

11. Tamborlane WV, Bishai R, Geller D, Shehadeh N, Al-Abdulrazzaq D, Vazquez EM, et al. Once-weekly exenatide in youth with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2022;45:1833-40.

12. Arslanian SA, Hannon T, Zeitler P, Chao LC, Boucher-Berry C, Barrientos-Pérez M, et al. Once-weekly dulaglutide for the treatment of youths with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2022;387:433-43.

13. Tamborlane WV, Laffel LM, Shehadeh N, Isganaitis E, Van Name M, Ratnayake J, et al. Efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in children and young adults with type 2 diabetes: a prospective, multicentre, randomised, parallel group, phase 3 study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2022;10:341-50.

14. Laffel LM, Danne T, Klingensmith GJ, Tamborlane WV, Willi S, Zeitler P, et al. Efficacy and safety of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin versus placebo and the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin versus placebo in young people with type 2 diabetes (DINAMO): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel group, phase 3 trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2023;11:169-81.

15. Bjornstad P, Drews KL, Caprio S, Gubitosi-Klug R, Nathan DM, Tesfaldet B, et al. Long-term complications in youth-onset type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2021;385:416-26.

16. Tommerdahl KL, Shapiro ALB, Nehus EJ, Bjornstad P. Early microvascular complications in type 1 and type 2 diabetes: recent developments and updates. Pediatr Nephrol 2022;37:79-93.

17. Maahs DM, Snively BM, Bell RA, Dolan L, Hirsch I, Imperatore G, et al. Higher prevalence of elevated albumin excretion in youth with type 2 than type 1 diabetes: the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study. Diabetes Care 2007;30:2593-8.

18. Dabelea D, Stafford JM, Mayer-Davis EJ, D'Agostino R, Dolan L, Imperatore G, et al. Association of type 1 diabetes vs type 2 diabetes diagnosed during childhood and adolescence with complications during teenage years and young adulthood. JAMA 2017;317:825-35.

19. Jaiswal M, Divers J, Dabelea D, Isom S, Bell RA, Martin CL, et al. Prevalence of and risk factors for diabetic peripheral neuropathy in youth with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study. Diabetes Care 2017;40:1226-32.

20. Kim HY, Kim JH. Diagnostic and therapeutic strategies of type 2 diabetes mellitus in youth. Ewha Med J 2022;45:e3.

21. Bjornstad P, Nehus E, El Ghormli L, Bacha F, Libman IM, McKay S, et al. Insulin sensitivity and diabetic kidney disease in children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes: an observational analysis of data from the TODAY clinical trial. Am J Kidney Dis 2018;71:65-74.

22. TODAY Study Group. Rapid rise in hypertension and nephropathy in youth with type 2 diabetes: the TODAY clinical trial. Diabetes Care 2013;36:1735-41.

23. Tommerdahl KL, Kendrick J, Nelson RG, Bjornstad P. Youth versus adult-onset type 2 diabetic kidney disease: insights into currently known structural differences and the potential underlying mechanisms. Clin Sci (Lond) 2022;136:1471-83.

24. Viner R, White B, Christie D. Type 2 diabetes in adolescents: a severe phenotype posing major clinical challenges and public health burden. Lancet 2017;389:2252-60.

25. Amiel SA, Sherwin RS, Simonson DC, Lauritano AA, Tamborlane WV. Impaired insulin action in puberty. A contributing factor to poor glycemic control in adolescents with diabetes. N Engl J Med 1986;315:215-9.

26. Kelsey MM, Zeitler PS. Insulin resistance of puberty. Curr Diab Rep 2016;16:64.

27. Moran A, Jacobs DR, Steinberger J, Hong CP, Prineas R, Luepker R, et al. Insulin resistance during puberty: results from clamp studies in 357 children. Diabetes 1999;48:2039-44.

28. Trief PM, Wen H, Burke B, Uschner D, Anderson BJ, Liu X, et al. Psychosocial factors and glycemic control in young adults with youth-onset type 2 diabetes. JAMA Netw Open 2024;7:e245620.

29. Agarwal S, Raymond JK, Isom S, Lawrence JM, Klingensmith G, Pihoker C, et al. Transfer from paediatric to adult care for young adults with type 2 diabetes: the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study. Diabet Med 2018;35:504-12.

30. Haghighatpanah M, Nejad ASM, Haghighatpanah M, Thunga G, Mallayasamy S. Factors that correlate with poor glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with complications. Osong Public Health Res Perspect 2018;9:167-74.

31. Park J, Oh J, Yu J. Autoantibody positivity and clinical characteristics of diabetes mellitus in childhood. J Korean Soc Pediatr Endocrinol 2011;16:119.

32. Zeitler P, Arslanian S, Fu J, Pinhas-Hamiel O, Reinehr T, Tandon N, et al. Ispad clinical practice consensus guidelines 2018: type 2 diabetes mellitus in youth. Pediatr Diabetes 2018;19 Suppl 27:28-46.

33. Gottschalk M, Danne T, Vlajnic A, Cara JF. Glimepiride versus metformin as monotherapy in pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, single-blind comparative study. Diabetes Care 2007;30:790-94.

34. Tamborlane WV, Laffel LM, Weill J, Gordat M, Neubacher D, Retlich S, et al. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-finding study of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin in pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes 2018;19:640-8.

35. Li X, Sun T, Du X, Xie X, Shi L. The efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide- 1 agonists in pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab 2022;35:1457-63.

36. Seo JY, Lee CG, Choi H, Lee HK, Lee SY, Kim HJ, et al. Effects of once-weekly dulaglutide on juvenile type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity in Korea: a pilot study. Ann Pediatr Endocrinol Metab 2023;28:296-301.