Dataset Information

Improving the estimation of mealtime insulin dose in adults with type 1 diabetes: the Normal Insulin Demand for Dose Adjustment (NIDDA) study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Although carbohydrate counting is routine practice in type 1 diabetes, hyperglycemic episodes are common. A food insulin index (FII) has been developed and validated for predicting the normal insulin demand generated by mixed meals in healthy adults. We sought to compare a novel algorithm on the basis of the FII for estimating mealtime insulin dose with carbohydrate counting in adults with type 1 diabetes.

Research design and methods

A total of 28 patients using insulin pump therapy consumed two different breakfast meals of equal energy, glycemic index, fiber, and calculated insulin demand (both FII = 60) but approximately twofold difference in carbohydrate content, in random order on three consecutive mornings. On one occasion, a carbohydrate-counting algorithm was applied to meal A (75 g carbohydrate) for determining bolus insulin dose. On the other two occasions, carbohydrate counting (about half the insulin dose as meal A) and the FII algorithm (same dose as meal A) were applied to meal B (41 g carbohydrate). A real-time continuous glucose monitor was used to assess 3-h postprandial glycemia.

Results

Compared with carbohydrate counting, the FII algorithm significantly decreased glucose incremental area under the curve over 3 h (-52%, P = 0.013) and peak glucose excursion (-41%, P = 0.01) and improved the percentage of time within the normal blood glucose range (4-10 mmol/L) (31%, P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of hypoglycemia.

Conclusions

An insulin algorithm based on physiological insulin demand evoked by foods in healthy subjects may be a useful tool for estimating mealtime insulin dose in patients with type 1 diabetes.

SUBMITTER: Bao J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3177729 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Improving the estimation of mealtime insulin dose in adults with type 1 diabetes: the Normal Insulin Demand for Dose Adjustment (NIDDA) study.

Bao Jiansong J Gilbertson Heather R HR Gray Robyn R Munns Diane D Howard Gabrielle G Petocz Peter P Colagiuri Stephen S Brand-Miller Jennie C JC

Diabetes care 20111001 10

<h4>Objective</h4>Although carbohydrate counting is routine practice in type 1 diabetes, hyperglycemic episodes are common. A food insulin index (FII) has been developed and validated for predicting the normal insulin demand generated by mixed meals in healthy adults. We sought to compare a novel algorithm on the basis of the FII for estimating mealtime insulin dose with carbohydrate counting in adults with type 1 diabetes.<h4>Research design and methods</h4>A total of 28 patients using insulin ...[more]

PMID: 21949219

Similar Datasets

Project description:Aims/hypothesisIt is generally recommended to reduce basal insulin doses after exercise to reduce the risk of post-exercise nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Based on its long t½, it is unknown whether such adjustments are required or beneficial for insulin degludec.MethodsThe ADREM study (Adjustment of insulin Degludec to Reduce post-Exercise (nocturnal) hypoglycaeMia in people with diabetes) was a randomised controlled, crossover study in which we compared 40% dose reduction (D40), or postponement and 20% dose reduction (D20-P), with no dose adjustment (CON) in adults with type 1 diabetes at elevated risk of hypoglycaemia, who performed a 45 min aerobic exercise test in the afternoon. All participants wore blinded continuous glucose monitors for 6 days, measuring the incidence of (nocturnal) hypoglycaemia and subsequent glucose profiles.ResultsWe recruited 18 participants (six women, age 38 ± 13 years, HbA1c 56 ± 8 mmol/mol [7.3 ± 0.8%], mean ± SD). Time below range (i.e. glucose <3.9 mmol/l) the night after the exercise test was generally low and occurrence did not differ between the treatment regimens. During the subsequent whole day, time below range was lower for D40 compared with CON (median [IQR], 0 [0-23] vs 18 [0-55] min, p=0.043), without differences in the number of hypoglycaemic events. Time above range (i.e. glucose >10 mmol/l) was greater for D20-P vs CON (mean ± SEM, 584 ± 81 vs 364 ± 66 min, p=0.001) and D40 (385 ± 72 min, p=0.003).Conclusions/interpretationPost-exercise adjustment of degludec does not mitigate the risk of subsequent nocturnal hypoglycaemia in people with type 1 diabetes. Although reducing degludec reduced next-day time below range, this did not translate into fewer hypoglycaemic events, while postponing degludec should be avoided because of increased time above range. Altogether, these data do not support degludec dose adjustment after a single exercise bout.Trial registrationEudraCT number 2019-004222-22 FUNDING: The study was funded by an unrestricted grant from Novo Nordisk, Denmark.

Project description:IntroductionThe biosimilar SAR341402 insulin aspart (SAR-Asp) was compared to its originator NovoLog®/NovoRapid® insulin aspart (NN-Asp) in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity, in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes switching from different rapid-acting insulin analogs.MethodsThis phase 3, randomized, open-label, multinational, 52-week study (GEMELLI 1) enrolled participants with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (n?=?597). At randomization, participants transitioned from NovoLog/NovoRapid (n?=?380) or Humalog®/Liprolog® (n?=?217) to equivalent (1:1) doses (or a dose at the discretion of the investigator) of either SAR-Asp or NN-Asp (1:1 randomization). Participants were treated with multiple daily injections in combination with insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Lantus®). In this subgroup analysis, efficacy measures (change in hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c], insulin dose [total, basal and mealtime]), and safety outcomes (hypoglycemia incidence, adverse events, anti-insulin aspart antibodies) of SAR-Asp were compared with those of NN-Asp separately according to the participants' prestudy mealtime insulin.ResultsAt week 26 (primary efficacy endpoint), change in HbA1c was similar between SAR-Asp and NN-Asp in those participants pre-treated with NovoLog/NovoRapid (least squares [LS] mean difference?-?0.04%, 95% confidence interval [CI]?-?0.182 to 0.106%) or Humalog/Liprolog (LS mean difference -?0.15%, 95% CI?-?0.336 to 0.043%) (P value for treatment by subgroup interaction?=?0.36). This HbA1c response persisted over the 52 weeks of the study similarly for both treatments within each subgroup. In both subgroups, changes in insulin doses were similar between treatments over 26 weeks and 52 weeks, as were the incidences of severe or any hypoglycemia, adverse events (including hypersensitivity and injection site reactions), and anti-insulin aspart antibodies.ConclusionsEfficacy and safety (including immunogenicity) profiles of SAR-Asp are similar to those of NN-Asp over 52 weeks in adults with diabetes irrespective of prior type of mealtime insulin.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03211858.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Standard concentration (100 units/mL) mealtime insulin is frequently used to treat patients with type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). A more concentrated version of the medication (200 units/mL) has been available in Italy since 2016. This concentrated version is bioequivalent to the standard version and delivers the same amount of medication but in half the volume of liquid. The purpose of this study was to examine patient preferences and estimate health state utilities associated with standard and concentrated rapid-acting mealtime analog insulin. METHODS:Participants with T1D and T2D in Italy valued two health states in time trade-off interviews. The descriptions of diabetes and treatment in the two health states were identical, differing only in terms of insulin concentration (e.g., half as much liquid for the same dose, less effort needed to press the injection button, and fewer injection pens required with concentrated insulin). To ensure participants understood the health states, they were shown a short video illustrating the differences between concentrations. RESULTS:A total of 217 participants completed the interviews (49.8% male; mean age 56.1 years; 109 from Milan; 108 from Rome; 12.0% T1D; 88.0% T2D). When asked which health state they preferred, 98.2% responded the concentrated version, 0.9% said the standard version, and 0.9% had no preference. Mean [standard deviation (SD)] utilities rounded to three decimals were 0.892 (0.099) for the concentrated version and 0.884 (0.101) for the standard version. The mean (SD; p value) utility difference between the standard and concentrated rapid-acting insulin was 0.007 (0.019; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS:Findings from this study provide insight into patient preferences associated with concentration of rapid-acting insulin. Although the difference in utility is small, patients consistently preferred the concentrated formulation over the standard insulin, and for some patients this difference had an impact on utility valuations. These results suggest that the concentration of rapid-acting insulin should be considered because it could affect treatment preference and quality of life. FUNDING:Eli Lilly and Company.

Project description:BackgroundInsulin initiation and/or titration for type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is often delayed as it is a resource-intensive process, often requiring frequent exchange of information between a patient and their diabetes healthcare professional, such as a credentialed diabetes educator (CDE) for insulin dose adjustment (IDA). Existing models of IDA are unlikely to meet the increasing service demand unless efficiencies are increased. Mobile health (mHealth), a subset of Ehealth, has been shown to improve glycaemic control through enhanced self-management and feedback leading to improved patient satisfaction and could simultaneously reduce costs. Considering the potential benefits of mHealth, we have developed an innovative mHealth-based care model to support patients and clinicians in diabetes specialist community outreach and telehealth clinics, that is, REthinking Model of Outpatient Diabetes care utilizing EheaLth - Insulin Dose Adjustment (REMODEL-IDA). This model primarily aims to improve the glycaemic management of patients with T2DM on insulin, with the secondary aims of improving healthcare service delivery efficiency and the patients' experience.Methods/designA two-arm pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted for 3 months with 44 participants, randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive either the mHealth-based model of care (intervention) or routine care (control), in diabetes specialist community outreach and telehealth clinics. The intervention arm will exchange information related to blood glucose levels via the Mobile Diabetes Management System developed for outpatients with T2DM. They will receive advice on insulin titration from the CDE via the mobile-app and receive automated text-message prompts for better self-management based on their blood glucose levels and frequency of blood glucose testing. The routine care arm will be followed up via telephone calls by the CDE as per usual practice. The primary outcome is change in glycated haemoglobin, a marker of glycaemic management, at 3 months. Patient and healthcare provider satisfaction, and time required to perform IDA by healthcare providers in both arms will be collected. This pilot study will guide the conduct of a large-scale pragmatic RCT in regional Australia.

Dataset Information

Improving the estimation of mealtime insulin dose in adults with type 1 diabetes: the Normal Insulin Demand for Dose Adjustment (NIDDA) study.

Objective

Research design and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Improving the estimation of mealtime insulin dose in adults with type 1 diabetes: the Normal Insulin Demand for Dose Adjustment (NIDDA) study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets