Table III.

Neurodevelopmental outcomes by treatment group^*

	Tight glycemic control	Standard care	P value†
Bayley-III scores	(n = 100)	(n = 101)
Age at testing, mo	13.2 ± 1.8	13.3 ± 1.8	.99
Composite scores
Cognitive	100.2 ± 13.3	100.8 ± 15.6	.75
Language‡	94.7 ± 13.0	94.7 ± 13.1	.99
Motor	87.2 ± 15.8	88.9 ± 16.9	.44
Subscale scores
Cognitive	10.0 ± 2.7	10.2 ± 3.1	.75
Receptive communication‡	9.4 ± 2.5	9.3 ± 2.4	.74
Expressive communication‡	8.8 ± 2.3	8.9 ± 2.6	.72
Fine motor	8.8 ± 2.7	9.3 ± 3.0	.14
Gross motor	6.9 ± 3.4	6.9 ± 3.5	.98
ABAS-II Composite scores	(n = 77)	(n = 77)
General Adaptive Composite	90.2 ± 15.8	88.3 ± 13.8	.41
Conceptual	93.9 ± 16.0	91.6 ± 13.5	.35
Social	97.0 ± 14.9	95.3 ± 13.9	.45
Practical	87.2 ± 12.8	86.2 ± 12.5	.58
ASQ-3, at risk	(n = 101)	(n = 102)
Communication	11 (11)	15 (15)	.53
Gross motor	46 (46)	48 (47)	.89
Fine motor	19 (19)	24 (24)	.49
Problem solving	25 (25)	31 (30)	.43
Personal-social	25 (25)	29 (28)	.64
BITSEA, at risk§	(n = 66)	(n = 71)
Problem	7 (11)	11 (15)	.46
Competence	20 (30)	26 (37)	.46

^*Values are mean ± SD or n (%).

^†P values for the comparison between treatment groups were calculated with the use of linear regression or stratified exact tests with adjustment for site, as appropriate.

^‡Bayley-III language composite score and receptive and expressive communication subscale scores were not available for 1 patient with tight glycemic control.

^§BITSEA calculated for patients 12 months and older.