The effect of bolus and food calculator Diabetics on glucose variability in children with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pump: The results of RCT

Department of Pediatrics, The Institute of Mother and Child, 01-211, Warsaw, Poland.
Pediatric Diabetes (Impact Factor: 2.57). 05/2012; 13(7). DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-5448.2012.00876.x
Source: PubMed


The calculation of prandial insulin dose is a complex process in which many factors should be considered. High glucose variability during the day, arising from difficulties which include errors made in food counting and inappropriate insulin adjustments, influence hemoglobin A1c levels. During this study, in children using insulin pumps to manage type 1 diabetes, we compared 2-h postprandial blood glucose levels (BGL) and glucose variability when calorie tables and mental calculation were used, to when Diabetics software was used.
This 3-month, randomized, open-label study involved 48 children aged 1–18 yr. Patients were educated in food counting system used in the Warsaw Pump Therapy School (WPTS) where the carbohydrate unit (CU) and the fat–protein unit (FPU) are taken into account. The children were randomly allocated to an experimental group (A) who used Diabetics software and a control group (B) who used caloric tables and mental calculations.
We observed significant differences (p < 0.05) between the groups in 2-h postprandial BGL's and the glucose variability parameters MeanT, SDT, % BGL in the target range 70–180 mg/dL, and high blood glucose index HBGI. We did not observe statistically significant differences in hypoglycemic events or low blood glucose index (LBGI) nor in HbA1c or insulin requirements.
The use of the Diabetics software by patients educated at the WPTS is safe and reduces 2-h postprandial BGL's and glucose variability.

Download full-text


Available from: Ewa Pańkowska, Jul 25, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Im Jahr 2011 und Anfang 2012 wurde eine Reihe hoch interessanter Beiträge zum Thema Typ-1-Diabetes veröffentlicht. In der vorliegenden Übersicht werden „Top-Publikationen“ aus den Bereichen Epidemiologie, Prävention, Insulintherapie, Insulinpumpentherapie, sensorunterstützte Pumpentherapie (SUP) und neue Therapieoptionen vorgestellt. Die hohe Zahl wegweisender Publikationen war in den Themenbereichen Prävention und SUP auffällig. Zum Thema Prävention wurden überwiegend Arbeiten auf dem Gebiet der Tertiärprävention publiziert. Die Ergebnisse zeigten keine Heilung, jedoch häufig eine Progressionshemmung. Die Publikationen im Bereich der SUP belegen die Überlegenheit dieser Therapieform im Vergleich zur klassischen intensivierten konventionellen Insulintherapie (ICT) bzw. Pumpentherapie ohne Sensor, wenn der Sensor möglichst häufig getragen wird. Die Gesamtheit der vorliegenden Studien deutet darauf hin, dass sich diese Therapieform zum neuen Goldstandard bei Typ-1-Diabetes entwickeln kann.
    Der Diabetologe 07/2012; 8(5). DOI:10.1007/s11428-011-0854-1 · 0.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: After 90 years of using insulin to treat type 1 diabetes, there has been no radical change in the treatment. Although several discoveries have improved both quality of life and metabolic control, they have not eradicated, morbidity, and mortality. Insulin analogues are sometimes helpful, and pens, pumps, smart glucometers, and educational tools have facilitated and improved treatment. Soon, better insulin pumps and glucose sensors together with sophisticated algorithms and connections leading to closed-loop systems will probably further improve and facilitate treatment of many patients with type 1 diabetes. However, the burden for patients will not disappear completely, and modern therapy will still require both competence and motivation of patients. Therefore, the goal should be either to cure the disease via replacement therapy (transplantations) or to stop the destructive process, preserve residual insulin secretion, or even improve insulin secretion via beta-cell regeneration. This will result in a milder disease, a stabler metabolism, simpler treatment, and perhaps even cure. Several studies are ongoing, but nothing has proved useful so far in clinical practice.
    06/2013; 1(2). DOI:10.1007/s40124-013-0012-x
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The optimization of metabolic control in Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM and T2DM, respectively) [i.e., the maintenance of near-normal hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia] could be enhanced by analysis of self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) data assessing complementary processes: exposure to hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. We present algorithms that simultaneously estimate HbA(1)c and risk for significant hypoglycemia using 45-60 days of SMBG. The algorithms were developed using a primary data for 96 subjects with T1DM (n = 48) and T2DM, and were validated in an external data for 520 subjects with T1DM (n = 231) and T2DM. All subjects were on insulin. In the primary (external) data the estimation of HbA(1c) had absolute error of 0.5 (0.7) units of HbA(1c) and percent error of 6.8% (8.1%); 96% (96%) of all estimates were within 20% from reference HbA(1c). The SMBG-estimated value of HbA(1c) was closer to current reference HbA(1c) than a reference HbA(1c) value taken only 2-3 months ago. The results in T1DM and T2DM were similar. Linear model predicted future significant hypoglycemia (R(2) = 62%, p < 0.0001). The leading predictor was a previously introduced Low Blood Glucose Index, which alone had R(2) = 55%. Probability model assessed accurately the odds for future moderate/severe hypoglycemia (coefficients of determination 92%/94%). Four risk categories were identified; within moderate- and high-risk category, there was no difference between T1DM and T2DM in the occurrence of prospective significant hypoglycemia. SMBG data allow for accurate estimation of the two most important markers of metabolic control in T1DM and T2DM - HbA(1c) and risk for hypoglycemia.
    Diabetes Technology &amp Therapeutics 10/2003; 5(5):817-28. DOI:10.1089/152091503322527021 · 2.11 Impact Factor
Show more