For a high fat, high protein breakfast, preprandial administration of 125% of the insulin dose improves postprandial glycaemic excursions in people with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections: A cross-over trial.

AIM: To determine the glycaemic impact of an increased insulin dose, split insulin dose and regular insulin for a high fat, high protein breakfast in people with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections (≥4/day). METHODS: In this cross-over trial, participants received the same high fat, high protein breakfast (carbohydrate:30 g, fat:40 g, protein:50 g) for 4 days. Four different insulin strategies were randomly allocated and tested; 100% of the insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio (ICR) given in a single dose using aspart insulin (100Asp), 125% ICR given in a single dose using aspart (125Asp) or regular insulin (125Reg) and 125% ICR given in a split dose using aspart insulin (100:25Asp). Insulin was given 0.25 hr pre-meal and for 100:25Asp, also 1 hr post-meal. Postprandial sensor glucose was measured for 5 hr. RESULTS: In all, 24 children and adults were participated. The 5-hr incremental area under the curves for 100Asp, 125Asp, 125Reg and 100:25Asp were 620 mmol/L.min [95% CI: 451,788], 341 mmol/L.min [169,512], 675 mmol/L.min [504,847] and 434 mmol/L.min [259,608], respectively. The 5-hr incremental area under the curve for 125Asp was significantly lower than for 100Asp (p = 0.016) and for 125Reg (p = 0.002). There was one episode of hypoglycaemia in 125Reg. CONCLUSIONS: For a high fat, high protein breakfast, giving 125% ICR preprandially, using aspart insulin significantly improved postprandial glycaemia without hypoglycaemia. There was no additional glycaemic benefit from giving insulin in a split dose (100:25%) or replacing aspart with regular insulin.

Young children with type 1 diabetes can achieve glycemic targets without hypoglycemia: Results of a novel intensive diabetes management program.

BACKGROUND: Young children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) present unique challenges for intensive diabetes management. We describe an intensive diabetes program adapted for young children and compare glycemic control, anthropometry, dietary practices and insulin regimens before and after implementation. METHODS: Cross sectional data from children with T1D aged ≥0.5 to <7.0 years attending the John Hunter Children's Hospital (JHCH), Australia in 2004, 2010 and 2016 were compared. Outcome measures were glycemic control assessed by hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c ); severe hypoglycemia episodes; body mass index standard deviation scores (BMI-SDS); diabetes ketoacidosis (DKA) episodes; and insulin regimen-twice daily injections, multiple daily injections, or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. RESULTS: Mean HbA1c declined by 12 mmol/mol over the study period (P < .01). The proportion of children achieving a mean HbA1c < 58 mmol/mol increased significantly from 31% in 2004 to 64% in 2010 (P < .01), and from 64% in 2010 to 83% in 2016 (P = .04). The mean BMI-SDS was significantly lower in 2010 when compared with 2004 (P<.01); however, this trend plateaued between 2010 and 2016 (P = .97). Severe hypoglycemia and DKA occurred infrequently. The prevalence of overweight or obesity increased from 2010 to 2016 (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: The JHCH intensive diabetes management program has resulted in 83% of young children in 2016 achieving target glycemia without an increase in severe hypoglycemia or DKA. Overweight remains a challenge in this population warranting action to reduce weight and protect these children from future obesity-related health risks.

Bubble formation occurs in insulin pumps in response to changes in ambient temperature and atmospheric pressure but not as a result of vibration.

INTRODUCTION: Bubble formation in insulin pump giving sets is a common problem. We studied change in temperature, change in atmospheric pressure, and vibration as potential mechanisms of bubble formation. METHODS: 5 Animas 2020 pumps with 2 mL cartridges and Inset II infusion systems, 5 Medtronic Paradigm pumps with 1.8 mL cartridge and Quickset and 3 Roche Accu-chek pumps with 3.15 mL cartridges were used. Temperature study: insulin pumps were exposed to a temperature change from 4°C to 37°C. Pressure study: insulin pumps were taken to an altitude of 300 m. Vibration study: insulin pumps were vigorously shaken. All were observed for bubble formation. RESULTS: Bubble formation was observed with changes in temperature and atmospheric pressure. Bubble formation did not occur with vibration. DISCUSSION: Changes in insulin temperature and atmospheric pressure are common and may result in bubble formation. Vibration may distribute bubbles but does not cause bubble formation.

Extended insulin boluses cannot control postprandial glycemia as well as a standard bolus in children and adults using insulin pump therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Insulin pumps are able to deliver bolus insulin as a standard, extended or combination bolus. There is minimal research to determine which bolus is preferable in different settings. Anecdotally, many patients utilizes only the standard bolus (SB) due to uncertainty regarding when and how to program the different bolus types. We compared postprandial glycemia when five different extended boluses (EBs) and an SB were used following a test meal. We sought to determine the impact of varying rates of insulin delivery from an EB on early postprandial glycemia. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, repeated measures trial of 20 children and adults comparing postprandial glycemic excursions following EBs given at five different rates with SB as a control. All EBs were delivered over 2 h. Rates of EBs were chosen to reflect EBs used in clinical practice: EB1HR=100% of insulin:carbohydrate ratio (ICR) per hour (200% ICR total dose); EB2HR=50% of ICR per hour; EB3HR=33% of ICR per hour; EB4HR=25% of ICR per hour; EB6HR=16% ICR per hour. A standardized breakfast was given and activity was standardized. Continuous glucose monitoring was used to assess glycemia for 2 h after the meal. RESULTS: The mean postprandial glycemic excursions were lower at 30, 60, and 90 min (p<0.05) for SB compared with all EBs. The mean peak postprandial glycemic excursion and the area under the curve was lower for SB compared with all EBs (p<0.05). DISCUSSION: EBs resulted in higher postprandial glycemic excursions than SB for 2 h after the meal. For a moderate glycemic index meal EBs are unable to control glycemia for 2 h after a meal as well as SB. Further studies with different meal types are required to determine the impact of differential delivery of the EB on postprandial glycemia. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12612000609853.

Both dietary protein and fat increase postprandial glucose excursions in children with type 1 diabetes, and the effect is additive.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the separate and combined effects of high-protein (HP) and high-fat (HF) meals, with the same carbohydrate content, on postprandial glycemia in children using intensive insulin therapy (IIT). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Thirty-three subjects aged 8-17 years were given 4 test breakfasts with the same carbohydrate amount but varying protein and fat quantities: low fat (LF)/low protein (LP), LF/HP, HF/LP, and HF/HP. LF and HF meals contained 4 g and 35 g fat. LP and HP meals contained 5 g and 40 g protein. An individually standardized insulin dose was given for each meal. Postprandial glycemia was assessed by 5-h continuous glucose monitoring. RESULTS: Compared with the LF/LP meal, mean glucose excursions were greater from 180 min after the LF/HP meal (2.4 mmol/L [95% CI 1.1-3.7] vs. 0.5 mmol/L [-0.8 to 1.8]; P = 0.02) and from 210 min after the HF/LP meal (1.8 mmol/L [0.3-3.2] vs. -0.5 mmol/L [-1.9 to 0.8]; P = 0.01). The HF/HP meal resulted in higher glucose excursions from 180 min to 300 min (P < 0.04) compared with all other meals. There was a reduction in the risk of hypoglycemia after the HP meals (odds ratio 0.16 [95% CI 0.06-0.41]; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Meals high in protein or fat increase glucose excursions in youth using IIT from 3 h to 5 h postmeal. Protein and fat have an additive impact on the delayed postprandial glycemic rise. Protein had a protective effect on the development of hypoglycemia.